On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 09:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > >
> > > After investigation it seems the location of the new dejagnu
> > > directive for
> > > C++ differs depending on the configuration.
> > > The expected warning is still emitted, but its location differ
> > > slightly.
> > > I expect it to be not an issue per se of the analyzer, but a
> > > divergence in
> > > the FE between the two configurations.
> >
> > I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the
> > struct
> > in registers or in memory. If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32
> > case), we have
> > [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > [return slot optimization]
> > [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v}
> > {CLOBBER(eol)};
> > [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> > in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
> > [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
> > [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> >
> > If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same
> > line as the
> > call might be a usable workaround for that.
>
> Here is the workaround in patch form. Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-
> m64, ok
> for trunk?
Yes, thanks!
Dave
>
> 2023-09-12 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR testsuite/111377
> * c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b):
> Move
> closing } to the same line as the call to work-around
> differences in
> diagnostics line.
>
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-
> 1.c.jj 2023-09-11 11:05:47.523727789 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c 2023-
> 09-12 08:58:52.854231161 +0200
> @@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
>
> void test_5b (void)
> {
> - called_by_test_5b ();
> -} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" {
> target c++ } } */
> + called_by_test_5b (); }
> +/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target
> c++ } .-1 } */
> +/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the
> call, because
> + otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether
> the
> + called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not. */
>
>
> Jakub
>
