On 02/28/2018 02:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:19:56PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:PR c++/83871 PR c++/83503 * g++.dg/ext/attr-const.C: New test. * g++.dg/ext/attr-pure.C: New test.I've tried to fix these 2 tests with following patch, without -fdump-tree-optimized all the scan-tree-dump* tests are UNRESOLVED, and when you use the same function for multiple-subtests all you get is the same failures reported multiple times, but without knowing which of them failed. Unfortunately, even with this patch there are failures: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-const.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-not optimized "test_func_none_const_failed"
...
so if the test is right, then something is still broken on the C++ FE side. I'll defer debugging this to you.
Thanks for fixing up the unresolved tests. I have a script that checks test results against a baseline for unexpected failures but it doesn't look for differences in UNRESOLVED so I didn't see them as problems. I'll have to remember to enhance it to do that. With the unresolved problems fixed, the remaining failures are due to two problems: 1) A regression in the merging of attributes introduced by my patch. I wondered about why attributes const and pure were being handled differently than the others here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01479.html Jason explained that parts of the structure were being copied via memcpy. Since I thought my tests were passing I took that to mean that the bits were being copied. Sigh. 2) A pre-existing bug where the C++ front end doesn't apply an attribute to a declaration of a function template previously declared without one, as in: template <class T> int f (); template <class T> int __attribute__ ((const)) f (); The root cause might be the same as the one behind bug 84294 - missing warning for ignored attribute on a function template declaration. Let me fix the first one and see what it would take to handle the second as well. Martin
