diff mbox

PR tree-optimization/52904 testcase

Message ID 53EA09EA.1030905@linaro.org
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Kugan Vivekanandarajah Aug. 12, 2014, 12:34 p.m. UTC
>>> Did you verify the testcase fails before the revision that fixed it?
>>> Esp. the placement of the dg-bogus looks bogus to me.
>>
>> I tried it on Linaro 4.9 (It should be the same in fsf gcc 4.9 branch)
>> and the test cases is failing there. Passes on trunk.
> 
> Well, it probably fails because of excess errors, not because of
> the dg-bogus failing.  The dg-bogus has to be on the line that
> the warning triggers on.

It was indeed excess errors and I wrongly assumed that this was the
error I should expect. I have now moved the dg-bogus to the place where
warning is being generated and verified that I am getting the error from
test for bogus messages.

> 
>> In any case, I have moved it to the top and reverified. I have also
>> trimmed the warning pattern to check as there was some changes there
>> from 4.9 to trunk.
>>
>>>
>>> Also don't use -S in dg-options, use lower-case filenames and
>>> avoid spurious vertical white-space.  The VRP dump scan is
>>> also very unspecific - I suggest to drop it entirely.
>>>
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>
>> Is this OK?
> 
> Err.
> 
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +
> 
> Excessive vertical space
> 
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-Wstrict-overflow -O2" } */
> +/* { dg-bogus "assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying" */
> +
I have fixed it.

Is this OK?

Thanks,
Kugan

Comments

Richard Biener Aug. 13, 2014, 9:27 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Kugan
<kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> Did you verify the testcase fails before the revision that fixed it?
>>>> Esp. the placement of the dg-bogus looks bogus to me.
>>>
>>> I tried it on Linaro 4.9 (It should be the same in fsf gcc 4.9 branch)
>>> and the test cases is failing there. Passes on trunk.
>>
>> Well, it probably fails because of excess errors, not because of
>> the dg-bogus failing.  The dg-bogus has to be on the line that
>> the warning triggers on.
>
> It was indeed excess errors and I wrongly assumed that this was the
> error I should expect. I have now moved the dg-bogus to the place where
> warning is being generated and verified that I am getting the error from
> test for bogus messages.
>
>>
>>> In any case, I have moved it to the top and reverified. I have also
>>> trimmed the warning pattern to check as there was some changes there
>>> from 4.9 to trunk.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also don't use -S in dg-options, use lower-case filenames and
>>>> avoid spurious vertical white-space.  The VRP dump scan is
>>>> also very unspecific - I suggest to drop it entirely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this OK?
>>
>> Err.
>>
>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>> +
>>
>> Excessive vertical space
>>
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-Wstrict-overflow -O2" } */
>> +/* { dg-bogus "assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying" */
>> +
> I have fixed it.
>
> Is this OK?

Ok!

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> Kugan
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52904.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52904.c
index e69de29..107d89e 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52904.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52904.c
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ 
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Wstrict-overflow -O2" } */
+extern int foo (int);
+
+int
+wait_reading_process_output (void)
+{
+  int nfds = 0;
+  int channel;
+
+  for (channel = 0; channel < 1024; ++channel)
+    {
+      if (foo (channel))
+	nfds++;
+    }
+
+  if (nfds < 0) /* { dg-bogus "assuming signed overflow does not occur" } */
+    return 1;
+  return 0;
+}