Am 23.08.24 um 17:47 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 8/23/24 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 23.08.2024 um 16:49 schrieb Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>:
On 8/23/24 6:02 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, this fails on machines that don't support scheduling:
cc1: warning: instruction scheduling not supported on this target
machine
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
cc1: warning: instruction scheduling not supported on this target
machine
Two paths make sense to me.
First we could add a -w to the flags in the relevant testcases to
suppress the warning.
Second we could just eliminate the warning completely. The warning
may have made sense in the run-up to gcc-2 when we added the
instruction scheduler. But we're 30 years past that point.
I'd support either approach.
I think there’s an effective target for insn scheduling
If so, that's fine by me as well.
jeff
Ok, applied this one,
Johann
testsuite: Add dg-require-effective-target scheduling for some
tests that set -fschedule-insns.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-2.c: Add
dg-require-effective-target scheduling.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c: Same.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-2.c
index c8473a74da6..02496d54d79 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr115929-2.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
/* { dg-additional-options "-fschedule-insns" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target scheduling } */
int a, b, c, d, e, f;
int main() {
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c
index ad13f0fc21c..287a09707ec 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr116343.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
// { dg-additional-options "-fschedule-insns -fno-thread-jumps -fno-dce" }
+/* { dg-require-effective-target scheduling } */
int a, b, c;
volatile int d;
