* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-30 11:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-18 16:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-30 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-30 11:36 -------
I guess this was honza. I see this as well on x86_64.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-06-30 11:36:16
date| |
Summary|FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C|[4.4 Regression] FAIL:
|scan-assembler |g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-
|.stabs.*foobar:c=i |assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-30 11:37 ` [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-18 16:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-20 12:37 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-18 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-30 11:37 ` [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-18 16:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-20 12:37 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-21 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-20 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-20 12:37 -------
For cris-elf (and crisv32-elf), it was introduced between
r136899(*) and r136903, in which the only suspect patch is Honza's enable
unit-at-a-time/-fno-toplevel-reorder patch.
In PR23205.s for cris-elf and crisv32-elf, the only stabs line matching
"foobar" is:
.stabs "foobar:S(0,25)=k(0,7)",38,0,5,__ZL6foobar
*) with a subsequently committed patch applied; that revision didn't actually
build.
Honza, are you working on this or should it be xfailed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-20 12:37 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-21 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-21 16:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-21 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-21 11:46 -------
With -fno-toplevel-reorder this generated foobar variable in .rodata already in
4.3, maybe earlier. The interesting code is in decide_is_variable_needed:
/* When not reordering top level variables, we have to assume that
we are going to keep everything. */
if (flag_toplevel_reorder)
return false;
/* We want to emit COMDAT variables only when absolutely necessary. */
if (DECL_COMDAT (decl))
return false;
return true;
Is that true even with unit-at-a-time that we have to assume all vars are
potentially used? After all, we should know all the variables, their
initializers and functions at this point.
If we can't change this, then I guess either the testcase should be passed
-ftoplevel-reorder, or matching foobar:(c=i|S) . Honza?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-21 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-21 16:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-29 19:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-21 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-21 16:14 -------
With unit-at-a-time we should be fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-21 16:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-29 19:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-30 0:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-30 0:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-29 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-29 19:14 -------
Actually, the behaviour of -fno-toplevel-reorder is documented this way:
`-funit-at-a-time'
This option is left for compatibility reasons. `-funit-at-a-time'
has no effect, while `-fno-unit-at-a-time' implies
`-fno-toplevel-reorder' and `-fno-section-anchors'.
Enabled by default.
`-fno-toplevel-reorder'
Do not reorder top-level functions, variables, and `asm'
statements. Output them in the same order that they appear in the
input file. When this option is used, unreferenced static
variables will not be removed. This option is intended to support
existing code which relies on a particular ordering. For new
code, it is better to use attributes.
Enabled at level `-O0'. When disabled explicitly, it also imply
`-fno-section-anchors' that is otherwise enabled at `-O0' on some
targets.
So I guess we want to change the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-29 19:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-30 0:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-30 0:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-30 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-30 00:11 -------
Subject: Bug 36668
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 30 00:11:23 2008
New Revision: 141453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141453
Log:
PR debug/36668
* g++.dg/other/PR23205.C: Allow foobar to be defined as variable.
* g++.dg/other/pr23205-2.C: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/pr23205-2.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/PR23205.C
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i
2008-06-29 16:18 [Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-30 0:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-30 0:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-30 0:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-30 00:49 -------
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread