[Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[Bug debug/36668] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/PR23205.C  -nostdinc++
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/hppa-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/hppa-linux
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/objdir/hppa-linux/libstdc++-v3/include
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/backward
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.4/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util -fmessage-length=0 
-gstabs+ -fno-eliminat
e-unused-debug-types  -fno-show-column -S  -o PR23205.s    (timeout = 300)PASS:
g++.dg/other/PR23205.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

See the following in PR23205.s:

        .stabs  "foobar:S(0,25)=k(0,7)",38,0,5,_ZL6foobar

This fail was introduced between 136828 and 137002.


-- 
           Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler
                    .stabs.*foobar:c=i
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: debug
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: hppa*-*-* (32-bit)
  GCC host triplet: hppa*-*-* (32-bit)
GCC target triplet: hppa*-*-* (32-bit)


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36668

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug debug/36668] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/PR23205.C scan-assembler .stabs.*foobar:c=i

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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