On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Uros Bizjak [mailto:ubiz...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:02 AM >> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V >> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote: >> > Attached is an updated patch according to your comments. New tests are >> > added to test ICF optimization in presence of nocf_check attribute. >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-2.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-2.c >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ >> /* { dg-do compile } */ >> /* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch" } */ >> -/* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' is not supported for this target" >> "" { >> target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ >> +/* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' requires CET support on this >> target. Use -mcet or one of -mibt, -mshstk options to enable CET" "" { >> target { >> "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ >> >> Checking for "-fcf-protection=branch' requires CET support on this target" >> should be enough. No need to check the whole message here and in other >> tests. > > Fixed as you suggested. Also shortened the checking string for ignoring the > attribute in attr-nocf-check-1.c and attr-nocf-check-3.c. > >> /* { dg-error "'-fcf-protection=branch' is not supported for this target" >> "" { >> target { ! "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++- >> common/fcf-protection-3.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-3.c >> >> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-4.c >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-4.c >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ >> /* { dg-do compile } */ >> /* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=none" } */ >> -/* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' is not supported for this target" "" { >> target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ >> +/* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' res CET support on this target. >> Use -mcet or one of -mibt, -mshstk options to enable CET" "" { target { >> "i?86- >> *-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ >> /* { dg-bogus "'-fcf-protection=none' is not supported for this target" "" { >> target { ! "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } 0 } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++- >> common/fcf-protection-5.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-5.c >> >> The above test checks for bogus messages? -fcf-protection=none option >> should not generate any messages. So, the test should check that -fcf- >> protection=none doesn't generate any error. (And, there is a typo in the >> message, /s/res/requires.) > > The gcc documentation says about dg-bogus > > This DejaGnu directive appears on a source line that should not get a message > matching regexp... > > I decided to use dg-bogus to check the absence of the error. Now I removed > both > lines as any additional messages should be caught as an extra messages. > Actually > I will update the fcf-protection-4.c test in the generic patch. > > Updated patch is attached. >
ChangeLog has * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-10.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-2.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-5.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-6.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-7.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-8.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-9.c: Likewise. But there are no gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-1.c nor gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-2.c. -- H.J.
