[Bug libstdc++/25815] New: [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[Bug libstdc++/25815] New: [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Last known to work with: "Fri Dec 30 21:24:33 UTC 2005 (revision 109181M)".
Known to fail with: "Wed Jan 11 14:14:27 UTC 2006 (revision 109585M)".

FAIL: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

With the message in the .log being:
...
PASS: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc (test for excess errors)
/home/hp/combined41/combined/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc:89:
void some_op_sequence(Cntnr) [with Cntnr\
 = pb_assoc::tree_assoc_cntnr<int, char, std::less<int>,
pb_assoc::rb_tree_ds_tag, pb_assoc::null_node_updator, std::allocator<ch\
ar> >]: Assertion `c.size() == 20' failed.^M
program stopped with signal 6.^M
FAIL: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

There were changes to both the c++ and libstdc++ in this time-frame.
Let's start with blaming libstdc++ as "component".


-- 
           Summary: [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite:
                    ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: cris-axis-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-01-17 02:21 -------
For sure, no changes to the concerned library code. Considering that, to my
best knowledge, nobody among the library maintainers has got such kind of
system and that the problem is not reproducable elsewhere, it's highly unlikely
that the problem will be fixed, be warned ;)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-01-17 03:02 -------
In response to comment #1:
For the record, *all* library maintainers have access to such a system, AFAIK.

I don't expect anyone to look into this, since it involves a few extra steps,
some of which involve considerable machine time (installing a glibc port) if
the host system isn't FC or Debian for ix86 or installing in /usr/local/cris
isn't an option; however the test was performed _using a simulator_ with code
publically available.

Should anyone wish to actually repeat the problem, there are some notes in
PR 22382 to get and install the glibc port (2.2.4-ish).  The cris-sim.exp file
is available from the dejagnu CVS, see head of PR 19745.

Again, I don't expect anyone else to look at this; the PR is mostly for my own
record-keeping.  Use or ignore it as you please.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-01-17 12:53 -------
Created an attachment (id=10657)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10657&action=view)
Draft for an aliasing issue


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-01-17 12:55 -------
Can you check whether this patch helps you in any way? Is the only pending
issue I'm aware of in the involved code and we are going to have something
similar anyway. -fno-strict-aliasing should also tell you something.


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pcarlini at suse dot de
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-01-17 13:00 -------
By the way, no need to run the entire testsuite: example/erase_if.cc can be
compiled and run standalone as-is.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-01-19 11:17 -------
Sorry, the patch in comment #3 did not help.
Same error, same assertion error message.
(No regressions though, tested cross to
cris-elf, cris-axis-linux-gnu, mmix-knuth-mmixware.)


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-01-19 11:17:33
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-01-19 11:22 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Sorry, the patch in comment #3 did not help.
> Same error, same assertion error message.
> (No regressions though, tested cross to
> cris-elf, cris-axis-linux-gnu, mmix-knuth-mmixware.)

Thanks for your testing. Can you also confirm that most likely it is not an
aliasing issue (i.e., -fno-strict-aliasing doesn't help either)? In that case,
I really believe we are dealing with a miscompilation.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-01-19 11:25 -------
Confirmed that compiling the test-case with -fno-strict-aliasing yields
the same error.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-22 17:26 -------

HP, I also don't know what is going on here, but it seems unlikely that the
libstdc++ code is to blame, just because there's been no change to this part of
libstdc++ in quite a while.

One thing you could check, if you have various compilers for cris around, is to
try to compile newer libstdc++ sources with a known good cris compiler. That
would at least let you know where things are problematic, without digging too
far into this.

-benjamin


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] [4.1 regression] libstdc++ testsuite: ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug libstdc++/25815] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-03-08 16:08 -------
Hardly a regression, considering that ext/pb_assoc has been released for the
first time in 4.1.0 ;)


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1 regression] libstdc++  |ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i
                   |testsuite:                  |f.cc execution test
                   |ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i|
                   |f.cc execution test         |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-08 18:35 -------
Uh, make no mistake, this *is* a regression; see the original description.
There's a revision before which this test worked and a revision after
which it does not work.  This happened in 4.1 era, so it's a 4.1 regression.
Whether or not the code that the ext/pb_assoc test is *intended* to test
is part of any gcc release is not central; it has no bearing on whether
the behavior is a regression.  It'd be like saying whether miscompilation
of a piece of code being a regression depends on whether that code was part
of the gcc release that miscompiled it.

I changed the PR component to a historically more probable one, to avoid
blaming libstdc++, as it seems that's an conclusion you're trying to avoid.


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|libstdc++                   |middle-end
            Summary|ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i|[4.1 regression]
                   |f.cc execution test         |ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_i
                   |                            |f.cc execution test


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2006-03-08 18:45 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> I changed the PR component to a historically more probable one, to avoid
> blaming libstdc++, as it seems that's an conclusion you're trying to avoid.

Agreed, *as a miscompilation*, can be a regression. And, yes, I'm trying to
avoid that conclusion, because, really, the chances that something show up in
the libstdc++ side, without some help from you, a reduced testcase of sort, are
close to zero, given the evidence we have got to date. Again, in my opinion, in
such cases, it would be better to have available in Bugzilla an "unclassified"
component.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-04-16 18:37 -------
Until/unless this is shown to be a problem on a primary/secondary platform, I'm
going to downgrade it to P5.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-25 02:36 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.1.1                       |4.1.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.1.2                       |4.1.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815

[Bug middle-end/25815] [4.1 regression] ext/pb_assoc/example/erase_if.cc execution test

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-04 15:16 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.  The log suggests this was only ever a problem on the
branch, not trunk; if it's actually present with more recent versions, please
reopen and mark accordingly.


-- 

jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
      Known to fail|                            |4.1.3
      Known to work|                            |4.2.0
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|4.1.3                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25815