Those 2 tests were removed during reviewing as they tested __builtin versions. ChangeLog was not updated.
Igor > -----Original Message----- > From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 1:59 PM > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: 0006-Part-6.-Add-x86-tests-for-Intel-CET-implementation > > 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.
