On 9/14/2021 8:53 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/14/21 4:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
The testcase still tests what it's supposed to test with ...
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
uint16_t a, b;
int *j_global;
uint16_t f(void)
{
int c, **p;
short d = 2, e = 4;
... "c = a;" added here (i.e. it still hangs before the pr55107 change).
for (;; b++)
{
int *j = j_global, k = 0;
for (; *j; j++)
{
for(; c; c++)
for(; k < 1; k++)
{
short *f = &d;
if(b)
return *f;
}
}
if(!c)
d *= e;
a = d;
if ((a ? b = 0 : (**p ? : 1) != (d != 1 ? 1 : (b = 0))) !=
((k ? a
: 0)
< (a * (c = k))))
**p = 0;
}
}
Thanks for getting rid of the noise here.
I've simplified the above to show what's going on in the warning on
nds32-elf:
int george, *global;
int stuff(), readme();
int
f (void)
{
int store;
for (;;)
{
int k = 0;
while (global)
{
for (; store; ++store)
Yeah, that seems a correct warning, your 'store' (the 'c' in the
original
testcase) is really used uninitialized (when 'global' aka '*j_global' is
non-zero). Sorry for not noticing earlier, I was only getting rid of
warnings, not carefully looking at the testcase itself. I think with
above initialization of 'c' it's conforming, and still a correct test
for
the original bug.
This is good news. So far, every single warning/problem that has
surfaced with the backward threader rewrite has been a latent bug
elsewhere (or a bad test) :-).
Always good news :-)
Would you mind checking in your changes to the testcase?
Yes, please do.
jeff
