On November 23, 2016 8:36:11 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The testcase uses char and can't work properly with unsigned char
>(otherwise
>c >= 0 is always true).
>
>In addition to that I've noticed that the testcase as is actually
>doesn't
>fail with the unfixed gcc, it will just print 2 on stdout.
>
>The following has been tested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux with both
>the broken compiler (FAILs) and fixed one (PASSes).
>
>Ok for trunk?
OK. Sorry for the breakage. I thought we'd get excess errors from the printf.
Richard.
>2016-11-23 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/78482
> * gcc.dg/torture/pr78482.c (c, d): Use signed char instead of char.
> (bar): New function.
> (main): Call bar instead of printf.
>
>--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr78482.c.jj 2016-11-23
>16:47:32.000000000 +0100
>+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr78482.c 2016-11-23
>19:59:31.000000000 +0100
>@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
>+/* PR tree-optimization/78482 */
> /* { dg-do run } */
>
>-int printf(const char*, ...);
> short a = 65531;
> int b = 3, f;
>-char c, d;
>+signed char c, d;
> static void fn1(int p1)
> {
> short e;
>@@ -22,13 +22,22 @@ static void fn1(int p1)
> }
> }
>
>+__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
>+int bar (const char *x, int y)
>+{
>+ asm volatile ("" : "+g" (x), "+g" (y) : : "memory");
>+ if (y == 2)
>+ __builtin_abort ();
>+ return 0;
>+}
>+
> int main()
> {
> for (; c >= 0; c--)
> {
> if (!b)
> {
>- printf("%d\n", 2);
>+ bar("%d\n", 2);
> continue;
> }
> fn1(a);
>
> Jakub
