Hi Dominique,
> On 19 May 2019, at 15:10, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
>
> AFAICT the syntax for dg-require-ifunc seems to be
>
> /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
>
> with two sets of exceptions:
>
> (1) gcc.target/i386/pr90500-*.c
>
> which explains
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for errors, line 6)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for errors, line 6)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c (test for excess errors)
>
> and is fixed with the trivial patch
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-16
> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-1.c 2019-05-18 14:28:12.000000000
> +0200
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* PR middle-end/84723 */
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */
> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
>
> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {}
> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64 __attribute__((alias("__tanh")))/* { dg-error
> "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */
From a Darwin point of view, this is OK (it seems obvious to me, also).
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-16
> 17:34:09.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90500-2.c 2019-05-18 14:28:25.000000000
> +0200
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* PR middle-end/84723 */
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-require-ifunc } */
> +/* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */
>
> __attribute__((target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))) int __tanh() {}
> __typeof(__tanh) tanhf64
> __attribute__((alias("__tanh"),target_clones("arch=haswell", "default"))); /*
> { dg-error "clones for .target_clones. attribute cannot be created" } */
>
> (2) gcc.target/i386/pr84723-*.c
>
> which succeed on darwin. What is the suitable fix for that?
My assumption here is that the tests should not be run on a non-ifuncs target,
but that it happens to be that they are testing for an erroneous condition
- which by chance also gives the correct error on a non-ifuncs target.
>
> (a) Fix the dg-require-ifunc as above?
I would prefer this, (it’s confusing to run tests for an unsupported
functionality)
- unless there is some other value to running the tests (will wait for comments
on that).
thanks for the patch.
Iain
> (b) Remove the line?
>
> TIA
>
> Dominique
>
