On 06/28/2017 10:14 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Martin, > >> On 06/28/2017 06:52 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 03/15/2017 03:58 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>>> Huh, I forgot to attach the patch. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> 0001-Introduce-IntegerRange-for-options-PR-driver-79659.patch >>>> >>>> >>>> From bb89456e6cecfa9497cf8e265d2083e762d5bc3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> >>>> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:07:03 +0100 >>>> Subject: [PATCH] Introduce IntegerRange for options (PR driver/79659). >>>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>>> >>>> PR driver/79659 >>>> * common.opt: Add IntegerRange to various options. >>>> * opt-functions.awk (integer_range_info): New function. >>>> * optc-gen.awk: Add integer_range_info to cl_options struct. >>>> * opts-common.c (decode_cmdline_option): Handle >>>> CL_ERR_INT_RANGE_ARG. >>>> (cmdline_handle_error): Likewise. >>>> * opts.c (print_filtered_help): Show valid interval in >>>> when --help is provided. >>>> * opts.h (struct cl_option): Add range_min and range_max fields. >>>> * config/i386/i386.opt: Add IntegerRange for -mbranch-cost. >>>> >>>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>>> >>>> PR driver/79659 >>>> * c.opt: Add IntegerRange to various options. >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> 2017-02-28 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>>> >>>> PR driver/79659 >>>> * g++.dg/opt/pr79659.C: New test. >>> Presumably this never fully moved forward because it wasn't a regression? >>> >>> This looks quite reasonable to me. I'm not sure of the state of the >>> prereqs and you may want/need to add IntegerRange checks on newly added >>> options since this was first submitted. >>> >>> If the prereqs are ack'd, then as far as I'm concerned this is good to >>> go and you're free to add any new IntegerRange checks you deem >>> necessary/desirable. >>> >>> jeff >>> >> >> Thank you Jeff for looking at the patch. I've just re-tested the patch and >> I'm going to install it. > > seems you didn't test thoroughly enough: your patch introduced a couple > of testsuite regressions on i386-pc-solaris2.12 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > (any x86 target, in fact): > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_d.c (test for excess errors) > +FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-7_d.c warning (test for warnings, line 48) > +FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_d.c (test for excess errors) > +FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-pred-8_d.c warning (test for warnings, line 42) > > +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c (test for excess errors) > +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-not gimple " & " > +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "if " > 2 > +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost4.c (test for excess errors) > +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost4.c scan-tree-dump-not gimple " & " > +UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost4.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "if " > 2 > > In all cases, you get > > Excess errors: > xgcc: error: argument to '-mbranch-cost=' is not between 1 and 5 > > since the tests are compiled with -mbranch-cost=0. > > Please fix. > > Rainer >
Thanks for head up, I didn't catch it because I did testing on a ppc64le machine. Fixed as obvious. Martin
>From d0003f3602f099dac9be1266c974eb24de4265f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin <mli...@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:42:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix -mbranch-cost range. gcc/ChangeLog: 2017-06-29 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> * config/i386/i386.opt: Change range from [1,5] to [0,5]. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.opt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt index 90eadbc4e18..adc75f36602 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ EnumValue Enum(asm_dialect) String(att) Value(ASM_ATT) mbranch-cost= -Target RejectNegative Joined UInteger Var(ix86_branch_cost) IntegerRange(1, 5) +Target RejectNegative Joined UInteger Var(ix86_branch_cost) IntegerRange(0, 5) Branches are this expensive (arbitrary units). mlarge-data-threshold= -- 2.13.1
