> Am 23.08.2024 um 06:42 schrieb Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>:
>
> Apparently due to slightly different optimization levels
> not always both subroutines have multiple subranges,
> but having at least one such, and no lexical blocks
> is sufficient to prove that the fix worked. Q.E.D.
> So reduce the test expectations to only at least one
> inlined subroutine with multiple subranges.
Ok
Richard
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR 116462
> * gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c: Reduce test expectations.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> fix was confirmed by reporter, OK for trunk?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c
> index 48d457216b1..083df5b586c 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c
> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
> -/* Verify that both inline instances have a DW_AT_ranges but
> - no extra DW_TAG_lexical_block. */
> +/* Verify that at least one of both inline instances have
> + a DW_AT_ranges but no extra DW_TAG_lexical_block. */
> /* { dg-options "-O -gdwarf -dA" } */
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\\(DIE \\(\[^\n\]*\\)
> DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine" 2 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times " DW_AT_ranges" 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler " DW_AT_ranges" } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "\\(DIE \\(\[^\n\]*\\)
> DW_TAG_lexical_block" 0 } } */
>
> static int foo (int i)
> --
> 2.39.2
>
