From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:48:42 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various targets [PR111377]
X-Git-Tag: basepoints/gcc-15~5996
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d2f53a601a23925b795ac162f7936163c3461b2c;p=thirdparty%2Fgcc.git

testsuite work-around compound-assignment-1.c C++ failures on various targets [PR111377]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I think the divergence is whether called_by_test_5b returns the struct
> in registers or in memory.  If in memory (like in the x86_64 -m32 case), we have
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3191 = called_by_test_5b (); [return slot optimization]
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21 discrim 1] D.3191 ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
> in the IL, while if in registers (like x86_64 -m64 case), just
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:71:21] D.3591 = called_by_test_5b ();
>   [compound-assignment-1.c:72:1] return;
>
> If you just want to avoid the differences, putting } on the same line as the
> call might be a usable workaround for that.

Here is the workaround in patch form.

2023-09-19  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR testsuite/111377
	* c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c (test_5b): Move
	closing } to the same line as the call to work-around differences in
	diagnostics line.
---

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c
index 0ab006d505ff..b7389e280837 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/compound-assignment-1.c
@@ -68,5 +68,8 @@ called_by_test_5b (void)
 
 void test_5b (void)
 {
-  called_by_test_5b ();
-} /* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } } */
+  called_by_test_5b (); }
+/* { dg-warning "leak of '<anonymous>.ptr_wrapper::ptr'" "" { target c++ } .-1 } */
+/* The closing } above is intentionally on the same line as the call, because
+   otherwise the exact line of the diagnostics depends on whether the
+   called_by_test_5b () call satisfies aggregate_value_p or not.  */