https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116675
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32a3f46ca543726196371a6f2a5d06feb31aa92d commit r15-5754-g32a3f46ca543726196371a6f2a5d06feb31aa92d Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Thu Nov 28 14:54:42 2024 +0100 testsuite: Fix up pr116675.c test [PR116675] The test uses dg-do run and scan-assembler* at the same time, that obviously doesn't work when pr116675.s isn't created at all, so one gets PASS: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c execution test gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c: output file does not exist UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c scan-assembler-times pand 4 gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c: output file does not exist UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c scan-assembler-times pandn 4 gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c: output file does not exist UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c scan-assembler-times por 4 The usual way to handle that is adding -save-temps option. The test FAILs after that change though, for simple reason, the pand regex doesn't match just pand instructions, but also the pandn ones. I've added \t there to make sure it matches only pand. Though, wonder if it wouldn't be safer to split the test into two, one with just the 4 functions (why noinline, noclone rather than noipa, btw?), that one would be dg-do compile and have the scan-assembler* directives, and then another one which includes the first one and is dg-do run and contains the runtime checking of those. In any case, I've committed this as obvious. 2024-11-28 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR target/116675 * gcc.target/i386/pr116675.c: Add -save-temps to dg-options. Scan for pand\t rather than pand.
