[Bug ada/19600] New: [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[Bug ada/19600] New: [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

=== acats tests ===
Running chapter a ...
splitting /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/a/a22006b.
ada into:
   a22006b.adb
BUILD a22006b.adb
gnatmake --GCC="/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/
objdir/gcc/" -gnatws -O2 -I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats
/support a22006b.adb -largs --GCC="/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/hom
e/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/"
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc -c -B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/ -
gnatws -O2 -I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support a2200
6b.adb
gnatbind -aO./ -I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support -
I- -x a22006b.ali
gnatlink a22006b.ali -largs --GCC=/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/home
/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/
/home/dave/opt/gnu/bin/ld: cannot find -largs
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
gnatlink: cannot call /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.0/objdir/gcc/xgcc
gnatmake: *** link failed.
[...]

Introduced between Fri Jan 21 00:41:50 UTC 2005 and
Sat Jan 22 03:17:57 UTC 2005.

-- 
           Summary: [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ada
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: hppa-unknown-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-24 00:34 -------
-largs is being passed on to LD which is wrong.
Last sucessful bootstrap/test for me was on "17 Jan"

This looks like wrong code as nothing in the ada front-end/testsuite changed.
Here are the only changes that might have an effect (on targets since it seems like it was all targets 
where this happens):

+2005-01-21  Hans-Peter Nilsson  <hp@bitrange.com>
+
+       PR target/18701
+       * combine.c (combine_simplify_rtx): Revert change of 2004-12-31.
+
+2005-01-21  Roger Sayle  <roger@eyesopen.com>
+
+       PR rtl-optimization/576
+       * real.c (real_arithmetic): Change return type from void to bool
+       to return an indication that the result may be inexact.
+       * real.h (real_arithmeric): Update prototype.
+       * fold-const.c (const_binop):  Don't constant fold floating
+       point expressions when the user specifies -frounding-math and
+       the result may depend upon the run-time rounding mode.
+       (fold_convert_const_real_from_real): Clean-up.
+       (fold_initializer): Ignore flag_rounding_math for initializers.
+       * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation): Likewise, don't
+       constant fold FP operations with flag_rounding_math if the
+       result may depend upon the run-time rounding mode.
+


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-24 00:49 -------
Do you actually know it breaks all targets? 
Can you actually show it is wrong code? 
 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-24 00:51 -------
Following http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01274.html it seems 
that s390, sparc, and x86 at least are also affected. 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-01-24 00:51:30
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-25 16:43 -------
Investigating.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug ada/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-25 17:24 -------
> This looks like wrong code as nothing in the ada front-end/testsuite changed.

Confirmed.

> Here are the only changes that might have an effect (on targets since it seems
> like it was all targets where this happens):

It's actually

2005-01-21  Ian Lance Taylor  <ian@airs.com>

	PR tree-optimization/13000
	* tree-inline.c: Include "tree-flow.h".
	(expand_call_inline): If warn_return_type, warn if non-void inline
	function falls through.
	* tree-cfg.c (execute_warn_function_return): Don't warn about
	control reaching end if TREE_NO_WARNING is set.  Set
	TREE_NO_WARNING.
	* gimple-low.c (block_may_fallthru): Don't assume that SWITCH_EXPR
	has been lowered.
	* gimplify.c (shortcut_cond_expr): Don't emit a jump over the else
	branch if we don't need one.
	* c-typeck.c: Include "tree-flow.h"
	(c_finish_bc_stmt): Don't add a goto if the current statement
	list doesn't fall through to the current point.

and most notably

	* gimplify.c (shortcut_cond_expr): Don't emit a jump over the else
	branch if we don't need one.


For these lines in make.adb:Scan_Make_Arg:

      elsif Argv = "-bargs"
              or else
            Argv = "-cargs"
              or else
            Argv = "-largs"
              or else
            Argv = "-margs"
      then
         case Argv (2) is
            when 'c' => Program_Args := Compiler;
            when 'b' => Program_Args := Binder;
            when 'l' => Program_Args := Linker;
            when 'm' => Program_Args := None;

            when others =>
               raise Program_Error;
         end case;

      --  A special test is needed for the -o switch within a -largs
      --  since that is another way to specify the name of the final
      --  executable.

      elsif Program_Args = Linker
        and then Argv = "-o"
      then
         Make_Failed ("switch -o not allowed within a -largs. " &
                      "Use -o directly.");

      --  Check to see if we are reading switches after a -cargs,
      --  -bargs or -largs switch. If yes save it.

      elsif Program_Args /= None then

         --  Check to see if we are reading -I switches in order
         --  to take into account in the src & lib search directories.

the flow-of-control fallthrus through the latter 2 'elsif's.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug middle-end/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-26 03:20 -------
Should be fixed by:
2005-01-25  Ian Lance Taylor  <ian@airs.com>

	* gimple-low.c (block_may_fallthru): Correct handling of
	SWITCH_EXPR--may fall through if SWITCH_LABELS is NULL.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600

[Bug middle-end/19600] [4.0 Regression] All acats tests fail

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-26 08:49 -------
> Should be fixed by:
> 2005-01-25  Ian Lance Taylor  <ian@airs.com>
> 
> 	* gimple-low.c (block_may_fallthru): Correct handling of
> 	SWITCH_EXPR--may fall through if SWITCH_LABELS is NULL.

Yep.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
  GCC build triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu      |*-*-*
   GCC host triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu      |*-*-*
 GCC target triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu      |*-*-*
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.0.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600