| Message ID | 54D88C34.7050606@mentor.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> wrote: > On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >>> On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> >>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (revision 0) >>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (working copy) >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ >>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >>>> +/* { dg-options "-O -Wuninitialized" } */ >>>> + >>>> +int a, l, m; >>>> +float *b; >>>> +float c, d, e, g, h; >>>> +unsigned char i, k; >>>> +void >>>> +fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned char *c1, float >>>> *f4, >>>> + unsigned char *c2, float *p10) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (p1 & 8) >>>> + b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +void >>>> +fn2 () >>>> +{ >>>> + float *n; >>>> + if (l & 6) >>>> + n = &c + m; >>>> + fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); >>>> +} >>> >>> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> this new test fails with -fpic, because fn1 is not inlined. >>> >>> Adding static to fn1 allows it to pass both with and without -fpic. But >>> that >>> change might affect whether it still serves as a regression test for this >>> PR, >>> I'm not sure. >>> >>> Another way to fix this could be to use the warning line number 22 >>> instead 13 >>> for fpic. >> >> >> Either way is fine with me. >> > > Committed using the method of different line number for -fpic. > > Thanks, > - Tom > > 2015-02-09 Tom de Vries <tom@codesourcery.com> > > * gcc.dg/uninit-19.c: Fix warning line for fpic. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c > index 3113cab..fc7acea 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned > char *c1, float *f4, > unsigned char *c2, float *p10) > { > if (p1 & 8) > - b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ > + b[3] = p10[a]; /* 13. */ > } > > void > @@ -19,5 +19,8 @@ fn2 () > float *n; > if (l & 6) > n = &c + m; > - fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); > + fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); /* 22. */ > } > + > +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target nonpic } 13 } */ > +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target { ! nonpic } } 22 } > */ > -- > 1.9.1 > Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> wrote: >> On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> >>>> On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >>>>> =================================================================== >>>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (revision 0) >>>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (working copy) >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ >>>>> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >>>>> +/* { dg-options "-O -Wuninitialized" } */ >>>>> + >>>>> +int a, l, m; >>>>> +float *b; >>>>> +float c, d, e, g, h; >>>>> +unsigned char i, k; >>>>> +void >>>>> +fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned char *c1, float >>>>> *f4, >>>>> + unsigned char *c2, float *p10) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + if (p1 & 8) >>>>> + b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +void >>>>> +fn2 () >>>>> +{ >>>>> + float *n; >>>>> + if (l & 6) >>>>> + n = &c + m; >>>>> + fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); >>>>> +} >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Richard, >>>> >>>> this new test fails with -fpic, because fn1 is not inlined. >>>> >>>> Adding static to fn1 allows it to pass both with and without -fpic. But >>>> that >>>> change might affect whether it still serves as a regression test for this >>>> PR, >>>> I'm not sure. >>>> >>>> Another way to fix this could be to use the warning line number 22 >>>> instead 13 >>>> for fpic. >>> >>> >>> Either way is fine with me. >>> >> >> Committed using the method of different line number for -fpic. >> >> Thanks, >> - Tom >> >> 2015-02-09 Tom de Vries <tom@codesourcery.com> >> >> * gcc.dg/uninit-19.c: Fix warning line for fpic. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >> index 3113cab..fc7acea 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c >> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned >> char *c1, float *f4, >> unsigned char *c2, float *p10) >> { >> if (p1 & 8) >> - b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ >> + b[3] = p10[a]; /* 13. */ >> } >> >> void >> @@ -19,5 +19,8 @@ fn2 () >> float *n; >> if (l & 6) >> n = &c + m; >> - fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); >> + fn1 (l, &d, &e, &g, &i, &h, &k, n); /* 22. */ >> } >> + >> +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target nonpic } 13 } */ >> +/* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" "" { target { ! nonpic } } 22 } >> */ >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> > > Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format? > I ran dos2unix on gcc.dg/uninit-19.c and checked it in.
On 16/03/16 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format? FWIW, the test was in DOS format from the start. Thanks - Tom
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c index 3113cab..fc7acea 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ fn1 (int p1, float *f1, float *f2, float *f3, unsigned char *c1, float *f4, unsigned char *c2, float *p10) { if (p1 & 8) - b[3] = p10[a]; /* { dg-warning "may be used uninitialized" } */ + b[3] = p10[a]; /* 13. */ }