On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 3:29 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> I was poking around with this test failure and noticed it was exercising
> undefined behavior. The return type doesn't matter for what's being
> tested, so just mark it as void.
Just a quick note, this is NOT undefined behavior in C to return
without a value from a function which has a non-void return type. It
is only undefined if the value was used.
It is undefined behavior in C++ though for a fallthrough.
Yes there is a difference in the language. As Jeff said it does not
change what the testcase was/is testing but we should be clear in the
changelog that this is NOT undefined behavior.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.dg/unroll-8.c: Remove UB.
> ---
> I didn't tes this, but it seems trivial enough that I'm just going to
> throw it at the bots and hope I'm right.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-8.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-8.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-8.c
> index 4388f47d4c7..06d32e56893 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-8.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/unroll-8.c
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> /* { dg-additional-options "-fno-tree-vectorize" { target amdgcn-*-* } } */
>
> struct a {int a[7];};
> -int t(struct a *a, int n)
> +void t(struct a *a, int n)
> {
> int i;
> for (i=0;i<n;i++)
> --
> 2.42.1
>
