Hi,

As Andrew pointed out in PR116148, fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c
was designed for little-endian, the recent commit r15-2403 made it
be tested with running on BE and PR116148 got exposed.

This patch is to adjust the expected data for members in with_fam_2_v
and with_fam_3_v by considering endianness, also update with_fam_3_v.b[1]
from 0x5f6f7f7f to 0x5f6f7f8f to avoid two "7f"s.

Tested on powerpc64-linux-gnu P8/P9 and powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9/P10.

Is it ok for trunk?

BR,
Kewen
-----
        PR testsuite/116148

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c: Define macros
        WITH_FAM_2_V_B[03] and WITH_FAM_3_V_A[07] as endianness, update the
        checking with these macros and initialize with_fam_3_v.b[1] with
        0x5f6f7f8f instead of 0x5f6f7f7f.
---
 .../fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c          | 22 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c
index 93f9d5128f6..7845a7fbab3 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fam-in-union-alone-in-struct-2.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ union with_fam_2 {
 union with_fam_3 {
   char a[];
   int b[];
-} with_fam_3_v = {.b = {0x1f2f3f4f, 0x5f6f7f7f}};
+} with_fam_3_v = {.b = {0x1f2f3f4f, 0x5f6f7f8f}};

 struct only_fam {
   int b[];
@@ -28,16 +28,28 @@ struct only_fam_2 {
   int b[];
 } only_fam_2_v = {{7, 11}};

+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
+#define WITH_FAM_2_V_B0 0x4f
+#define WITH_FAM_2_V_B3 0x1f
+#define WITH_FAM_3_V_A0 0x4f
+#define WITH_FAM_3_V_A7 0x5f
+#else
+#define WITH_FAM_2_V_B0 0x1f
+#define WITH_FAM_2_V_B3 0x4f
+#define WITH_FAM_3_V_A0 0x1f
+#define WITH_FAM_3_V_A7 0x8f
+#endif
+
 int main ()
 {
   if (with_fam_1_v.b[3] != 4
       || with_fam_1_v.b[0] != 1)
     __builtin_abort ();
-  if (with_fam_2_v.b[3] != 0x1f
-      || with_fam_2_v.b[0] != 0x4f)
+  if (with_fam_2_v.b[3] != WITH_FAM_2_V_B3
+      || with_fam_2_v.b[0] != WITH_FAM_2_V_B0)
     __builtin_abort ();
-  if (with_fam_3_v.a[0] != 0x4f
-      || with_fam_3_v.a[7] != 0x5f)
+  if (with_fam_3_v.a[0] != WITH_FAM_3_V_A0
+      || with_fam_3_v.a[7] != WITH_FAM_3_V_A7)
     __builtin_abort ();
   if (only_fam_v.b[0] != 7
       || only_fam_v.b[1] != 11)
--
2.45.2

Reply via email to