This causes a bootstrap failure for me. PR/101959
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 5:00 AM Richard Biener via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:40 AM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > >> [...], to document the current behavior, I propose to > > >> "Add more self-tests for 'hash_map' with Value type with non-trivial > > >> constructor/destructor", see attached. OK to push to master branch? > > >> (Also cherry-pick into release branches, eventually?) > > > > (Attached again, for easy reference.) > > > > > Adding more tests sounds like an excellent idea. I'm not sure about > > > the idea of adding loopy selftests that iterate as many times as in > > > the patch (looks like 1234 times two?) > > > > Correct, and I agree it's a sensible concern, generally. > > > > The current 1234 times two iterations is really arbitrary (should > > document that in the test case), just so that we trigger a few hash table > > expansions. > > You could lower N_init (the default init is just 13!), > even with just 128 inserted elements you'll trigger > expansions to 31, 61 and 127 elements. > > > For 'selftest-c', we've got originally: > > > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.309299 seconds > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.366041 seconds > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.356663 seconds > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.355009 seconds > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.367575 seconds > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.320406 seconds > > > > ..., and with my changes we've got: > > > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.327755 seconds > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.369522 seconds > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.355531 seconds > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.362179 seconds > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.363176 seconds > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.318930 seconds > > > > So it really seems to be all in the noise? > > Yes. I think the test is OK but it's also reasonable to lower > the '1234' times and add a comment as to the count should > trigger hashtable expansions "a few times". > > Richard. > > > Yet: > > > > > Selftests run each time GCC > > > builds (i.e., even during day to day development). It seems to me > > > that it might be better to run such selftests only as part of > > > the bootstrap process. > > > > I'd rather have thought about a '--param self-test-expensive' (or > > similar), and then invoke the selftests via a new > > 'gcc/testsuite/selftests/expensive.exp' (or similar). > > > > Or, adapt 'gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/expensive_selftests_plugin.c', > > that is, invoke them via the GCC plugin mechanism, which also seems to be > > easy enough? > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about where/when these tests get run, so > > will happily take any suggestions. > > > > > > Grüße > > Thomas > > > > > > ----------------- > > Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, > > 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: > > Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; > > Registergericht München, HRB 106955
