Hi Andi!
I'm lacking all possible context here, but I noticed:
On 2024-07-25T15:55:01-0700, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> - Run the target_effective tail_call checks without optimization to
> match the actual test cases.
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -12741,7 +12741,15 @@ proc check_effective_target_tail_call { } {
> return [check_no_messages_and_pattern tail_call ",SIBCALL" rtl-expand {
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void foo (void) { }
> __attribute__((__noipa__)) void bar (void) { foo(); }
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed
> dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed
> dump.
> +}
> +proc check_effective_target_external_tail_call { } {
> + [...]
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed
> dump.
> }
> @@ -12751,9 +12759,9 @@ proc check_effective_target_struct_tail_call { } {
> [...]
> - } {-O2 -fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed
> dump.
> + } {-fdump-rtl-expand-all}] ;# The "SIBCALL" note requires a detailed
> dump.
> }
..., that means that a number of the new test cases are UNSUPPORTED, for
example, x86_64 GNU/Linux:
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail1.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -Wc++-compat
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 4)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail13.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail2.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail3.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail4.c -Wc++-compat
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for errors, line 17)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 10)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 11)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 12)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 24)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 25)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 26)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 5)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 6)
+PASS: c-c++-common/musttail5.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail7.c -Wc++-compat
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/musttail8.c -Wc++-compat
(Similarly for their C++ testing.)
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail10.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail11.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail6.C
+UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/musttail9.C
..., and even a few existing test cases "regress" from PASS to
UNSUPPORTED:
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-1.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for excess errors)-]
[-PASS:-]{+UNSUPPORTED:+} gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so[-(test for errors, line 18)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 33)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 40)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 49)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for errors, line 58)-]
[-PASS: gcc.dg/plugin/must-tail-call-2.c
-fplugin=./must_tail_call_plugin.so (test for excess errors)-]
Similarly for ppc64le GNU/Linux.
Is that intentional?
Grüße
Thomas
