On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 01:58:26PM -0600, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 2020, at 1:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 01:20:58PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com> writes:
> >>> Three of the testcases fail on PowerPC:
> >>> gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-{9,10,11}.c
> >>> powerpc64le-linux-gnu/default/gcc.d/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:77:1: sorry,
> >>> unimplemented: '-fzero-call-used_regs' not supported on this target
> >>>
> >>> Did you miss some dg-require-effective-target ?
> >>
> >> No, these are a signal to target maintainers that they need
> >> to decide whether to add support or accept the status quo
> >> (in which case a new effective-target will be needed). See:
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/557595.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!PD1t9rpXf7lNS8yVbiQckiR5w3bv1eqGZenzRGPMBTAlYpshdQ9qVR0JLhoeNFMg$
> >> :
> >>
> >> The new tests are likely to fail on some targets with the sorry()
> >> message, but I think target maintainers are best placed to decide
> >> whether (a) that's a fundamental restriction of the target and the
> >> tests should just be skipped or (b) the target needs to implement
> >> the new hook.
> >
> > But why are tests in gcc.target/i386/ run for other targets at all?!
>
> No, tests in gcc.target/i386 should not run for PowerPC.
>
> What Tobias Burnus mentioned are the following tests:
>
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c
> -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-11.c
> -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-9.c
> -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c
> -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c
> -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c
> -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c
> -std=gnu++2a (test for excess errors)
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu-g++.sum:FAIL: c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-11.c
> -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
>
>
> They are under c-c++-common, not gcc.target/i386.
Ah, good. But the mail said
> >>> Three of the testcases fail on PowerPC:
> >>> gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-{9,10,11}.c
> >>> powerpc64le-linux-gnu/default/gcc.d/zero-scratch-regs-10.c:77:1: sorry,
> >>> unimplemented: '-fzero-call-used_regs' not supported on this target
so :-)
> These testing cases are added intentionaly on all platforms in order to check
> whether the current middle-end default implementation for
> -fzero-call-used-regs works on the specific platform.
>
> If the default implementation doesn’t work for the specific platform, for
> example, on PowerPC, it’s better for the Maintainer of PowerPC to decide
> Whether to skip these testing case on this platform or add a PowerPC
> implementation.
Yeah, we will deal with it. In stage 3 :-)
Segher
