* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-14 5:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-15 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-14 5:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-14 5:09 ` [Bug other/37463] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-15 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-16 15:04 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-15 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-15 11:05 -------
gas 2.15 is helplessly outdated and buggy. Can you retry with
-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-14 5:09 ` [Bug other/37463] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-15 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-16 15:04 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2008-09-30 18:10 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de @ 2008-09-16 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-09-16 15:02 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> gas 2.15 is helplessly outdated and buggy. Can you retry with
> -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm ?
Unfortunately, passing in BOOT_CFLAGS='-g -O2 -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm' didn't
help (the value wasn't picked up from the environment). Even if I manually
set BOOT_CFLAGS like that in the toplevel Makefile, it isn't passed down to
the libgcc and libstdc++-v3 builds, and manually compiling an individual
testcase with -fno-... isn't enough. If I add -fno-... to
i386-pc-solaris2.10/libgcc/Makefile, rebuild libgcc and a testcase with
-fno-..., the test passes.
On the other hand, I tried bootstrapping with the current binutils 2.18
release, which makes no difference, so this doesn't seem to be a gas
problem.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-16 15:04 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
@ 2008-09-30 18:10 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2008-09-30 18:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de @ 2008-09-30 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-09-30 18:09 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
I've done some further debugging: contrary to what gdb suggested, the
reason for the abort is the gcc_assert call in unwind-dw2.c
(uw_init_context_1):
code = uw_frame_state_for (context, &fs);
gcc_assert (code == _URC_NO_REASON);
Single-stepping at the assembler level, I find that code is
_URC_END_OF_STACK, i.e. _Unwind_Find_FDE () in uw_frame_state_for ()
returned NULL.
Since this code is such a maze, I'm hard pressed to further debug this, so
any guidance is appreciated.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-30 18:10 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
@ 2008-09-30 18:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-30 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-30 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 18:18 -------
Yep, same on SPARC.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-09-30 18:18:17
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-30 18:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-30 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-30 19:24 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-30 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 18:19 -------
See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-09/msg00195.html
Now someone needs to write a configure test for the compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-30 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-30 19:24 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2008-09-30 19:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de @ 2008-09-30 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-09-30 19:22 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-09/msg00195.html
Thanks for the info.
> Now someone needs to write a configure test for the compiler.
I'm a bit unsure how to test this right now: what I find is that C objects
have read-only .eh_frame sections and use .cfi* directives, while C++, Java
and Ada objects have read-write .eh_frame sections and still use .eh_frame
sections directly emitted by the compiler.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-30 19:24 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
@ 2008-09-30 19:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-07 16:05 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-30 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 19:41 -------
> I'm a bit unsure how to test this right now: what I find is that C objects
> have read-only .eh_frame sections and use .cfi* directives, while C++, Java
> and Ada objects have read-write .eh_frame sections and still use .eh_frame
> sections directly emitted by the compiler.
I think that we should assemble some C code with CFI directives and see whether
the resulting .eh_frame is read-only; if so, HAVE_GAS_CFI_DIRECTIVE must be set
to 0 instead of 1. This should discriminate between 2.18 and upcoming 2.19.
That the non-C compilers still emit .eh_frame directly is unexpected I'd think.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-30 19:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-07 16:05 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
2008-10-13 10:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de @ 2008-10-07 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2008-10-07 16:04 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
> I think that we should assemble some C code with CFI directives and see whether
> the resulting .eh_frame is read-only; if so, HAVE_GAS_CFI_DIRECTIVE must be set
> to 0 instead of 1. This should discriminate between 2.18 and upcoming 2.19.
That's what I did in my patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00249.html
I could just take the current test code for gcc_cv_as_cfi_directive as is
and inspect the object file with objdump on Solaris. Using C code directly
with gcc -fexceptions -fdwarf2-cfi-asm didn't work since it relies upon the
bootstrap compiler being gcc and sufficiently recent to support
-fdwarf2-cfi-asm, leading to comparions failures upon a mismatch.
> That the non-C compilers still emit .eh_frame directly is unexpected I'd think.
I think I'll raise a separate PR for that and add rth to the Cc:.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-07 16:05 ` ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de
@ 2008-10-13 10:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-10-22 3:20 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-13 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-13 10:00 -------
If you have prehistoric assembler which doesn't support .cfi_personality
directive, then .cfi_* directives can't be used for C++.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-13 10:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-10-22 3:20 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-03 16:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-22 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-22 3:20 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-03 16:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-03 19:06 ` ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-03 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 16:46 -------
Patch preapproved by Alex:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg01378.html
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-03 16:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-03 19:06 ` ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-03 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-19 18:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-03 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 19:04 -------
Subject: Bug 37463
Author: ro
Date: Mon Nov 3 19:03:28 2008
New Revision: 141555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141555
Log:
PR other/37463
* configure.ac (gcc_cv_ld_ro_rw_mix): Move before
gcc_cv_as_cfi_directive.
(gcc_cv_as_cfi_directive) [*-*-solaris*]: Check if linker supports
merging read-only and read-write sections or assembler emits
read-write .eh_frame sections.
* configure: Regenerate.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/configure
trunk/gcc/configure.ac
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-03 19:06 ` ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-03 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-19 18:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-03 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 19:23 -------
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail
2008-09-10 16:12 [Bug other/37463] New: [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-03 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-19 18:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-19 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-19 18:51 -------
> I'm a bit unsure how to test this right now: what I find is that C objects
> have read-only .eh_frame sections and use .cfi* directives, while C++, Java
> and Ada objects have read-write .eh_frame sections and still use .eh_frame
> sections directly emitted by the compiler.
The decision is made in dwarf2out_do_cfi_asm:
/* Decide whether to emit frame unwind via assembler directives. */
int
dwarf2out_do_cfi_asm (void)
{
int enc;
#ifdef MIPS_DEBUGGING_INFO
return false;
#endif
if (!flag_dwarf2_cfi_asm || !dwarf2out_do_frame ())
return false;
if (!eh_personality_libfunc)
return true;
if (!HAVE_GAS_CFI_PERSONALITY_DIRECTIVE)
return false;
/* Make sure the personality encoding is one the assembler can support.
In particular, aligned addresses can't be handled. */
enc = ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMAT (/*code=*/2,/*global=*/1);
if ((enc & 0x70) != 0 && (enc & 0x70) != DW_EH_PE_pcrel)
return false;
enc = ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMAT (/*code=*/0,/*global=*/0);
if ((enc & 0x70) != 0 && (enc & 0x70) != DW_EH_PE_pcrel)
return false;
return true;
}
On Solaris with Sun ld, ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMAT is defined so that at
least one of the 2 tests will always return false. Therefore the only way
to have dwarf2out_do_cfi_asm return true is
if (!eh_personality_libfunc)
return true;
The C++, Java and Ada compilers unconditionally register their personality
routine, whereas the C compiler doesn't, even with -fexceptions: if there
is no EH action in the code, it doesn't register it. Hence the discrepancy.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread