[Bug target/41684] New: [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[Bug target/41684] New: [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[doko at ubuntu dot com]

when binutils 2.20 branch is built with gcc-4.4 branch or trunk, I see the
following test failures in the ld testsuite. Checked with gcc-4.4 from
debian/testing, debian/unstable and ubuntu/karmic, and gcc-snapshot (4.5
20091010) from debian/unstable.

Running
/home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp ...
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset)
Running
/home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ...
FAIL: shared (non PIC)
FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)

test failures are:

FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC)
22c22
< main_visibility_checkvar () == 0
---
> main_visibility_checkvar () == 1

FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset)
22c22
< main_visibility_checkvar () == 0
---
> main_visibility_checkvar () == 1

FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC)
22c22
< main_visibility_checkvar () == 0
---
> main_visibility_checkvar () == 1

FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset)
22c22
< main_visibility_checkvar () == 0
---
> main_visibility_checkvar () == 1

Running
/home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ...
FAIL: shared (non PIC)
5c5
< shlib_overriddenvar () == -1
---
> shlib_overriddenvar () == 2

FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
5c5
< shlib_overriddenvar () == -1
---
> shlib_overriddenvar () == 2

FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)
5c5
< shlib_overriddenvar () == -1
---
> shlib_overriddenvar () == 2


-- 
           Summary: [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when
                    built with 4.4/4.5
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: doko at ubuntu dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-linux-gnueabi


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-13 22:02 -------
Confirmed. I've built binutils-2.19.1 and binutils-2.19.92 with gcc-4.3.4 (plus
loads of well-tested fixes) and gcc-4.4.1 vanilla on an armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
machine, and for both binutils versions using gcc-4.4.1 caused the 7 new
testsuite failures you listed.


-- 

mikpe at it dot uu dot se changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mikpe at it dot uu dot se


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-14 17:07 -------
A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as
the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one.

(*) 4.4 snapshots around this time also cause the following failures:

Running /tmp/binutils-2.19.92/ld/testsuite/ld-arm/arm-elf.exp ...
FAIL: BE8 Mapping Symbols
FAIL: Thumb-ARM farcall (BE8)
FAIL: Thumb-ARM farcall (BE)

but they seem to be gone with gcc-4.4.1 so I'm ignoring them.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[doko at ubuntu dot com]

------- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com  2009-10-14 17:24 -------
138206          2008-07-28      OK
                2008-11-16      FAIL (gcc-snapshot build)

that looks consistent with my test builds; with the 2008-07-28 build the ld
testsuite passes without failures


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[doko at ubuntu dot com]

------- Comment #4 from doko at ubuntu dot com  2009-10-14 21:21 -------
> A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as
> the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one.

build in between fail for me with:
/opt/doko/gcc/139572/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/doko/gcc/139572/./gcc/
-B/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/lib/ -isystem
/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/include -isystem
/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/sys-include -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-g -O2   -I. -I../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/../include  -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat -Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic 
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c -o fibheap.o
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:1: warning: target CPU does not
support interworking
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_union':
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:151: warning: implicit declaration
of function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:151: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:156: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:172: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_extract_min':
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:190: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_delete_node':
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: 'LONG_MIN' undeclared
(first use in this function)
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: (Each undeclared
identifier is reported only once
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: for each function it
appears in.)
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_delete':
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:269: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'free'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_consolidate':
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:360: warning: implicit declaration
of function 'memset'
../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:360: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'memset'
make[2]: *** [fibheap.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/opt/doko/gcc/139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/libiberty'
make[1]: *** [all-target-libiberty] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/doko/gcc/139572'
make: *** [all] Error 2


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[doko at ubuntu dot com]

------- Comment #5 from doko at ubuntu dot com  2009-10-14 21:26 -------
looking at the interval there a three arm specific commits:

 2008-08-23  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
 2008-08-23  Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at>
  - r139509: exception propagation support

 2008-08-26  Vladimir Makarov  <vmakarov@redhat.com>
  - r139590: IRA merge

 2008-08-26  Paul Brook   <paul@codesourcery.com>
  - r139603, r139599: arm vfp fixes


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-15 02:09 -------
A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-10-15 07:45:43
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-15 14:12 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.

That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by
default at -O1 and above. Compiling with -fno-section-anchors eliminates the
regressions in the binutils ld testsuite (tested with 4.4.1 and 4.5-20091008).

I did a test with the range of anchor offsets reduced from [-4088,+4095] to a
tiny [-120,+127], which should work with any arm instruction, but that did not
eliminate the regressions.

I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors
on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #8 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-15 14:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=18799)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18799&action=view)
kludge to disable section anchors on arm for gcc-4.4


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-10-15 15:17 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.
> 
> That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by
> default at -O1 and above. Compiling with -fno-section-anchors eliminates the
> regressions in the binutils ld testsuite (tested with 4.4.1 and 4.5-20091008).
> 
> I did a test with the range of anchor offsets reduced from [-4088,+4095] to a
> tiny [-120,+127], which should work with any arm instruction, but that did not
> eliminate the regressions.
> 
> I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors
> on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.
> 


I would rather find out why the middle end function use_anchor_for_symbol
doesn't reject the symbol for section anchors and fix this appropriately by
either specifying appropriate binds_local_p  or the use_anchor_for_symbol
handler appropriately. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-10-16 15:16 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors
> on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.

Done. It caused no new failures but fixed several objc ones:

@@ -339,34 +339,14 @@
 Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/compile/compile.exp ...
 Running
/home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/execute/exceptions/exceptions.exp ...
 Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/execute/execute.exp ...
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
 FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O0 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
-FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O1 -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O2 -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime
+FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution,  -Os -fgnu-runtime
 Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/dg.exp ...
 Running
/home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/gnu-encoding/gnu-encoding.exp ...
 Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/pch/pch.exp ...
@@ -374,10 +354,9 @@

                === objc Summary ===

-# of expected passes           1819
-# of unexpected failures       28
+# of expected passes           1866
+# of unexpected failures       8
 # of expected failures         7
-# of unresolved testcases      27
 # of unsupported tests         24

I had hoped that it might fix some small C or C++ test case which could then be
used for debugging section anchors, but no such luck.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.4.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-10-26 10:36 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors
> > on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.
> 
> Done. It caused no new failures but fixed several objc ones:

Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ? 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[kirill at shutemov dot name]

------- Comment #12 from kirill at shutemov dot name  2009-10-26 11:06 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ? 

Yes, it did.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ramana at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2009-10-15 07:45:43         |2009-10-26 11:20:47
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684

[Bug target/41684] [4.4/4.5 regression] binutils testsuite failures when built with 4.4/4.5

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-10-27 14:58 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> when binutils 2.20 branch is built with gcc-4.4 branch or trunk, I see the
> following test failures in the ld testsuite. Checked with gcc-4.4 from
> debian/testing, debian/unstable and ubuntu/karmic, and gcc-snapshot (4.5
> 20091010) from debian/unstable.
> 
> Running
> /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp ...
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset)
> Running
> /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ...
> FAIL: shared (non PIC)
> FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)

 When generating code that is not position independent, the compiler is
entitled to enable optimizations that don't retain the property of symbol
pre-emption that is possible with shared libraries and position independent
code. Section anchors is one optimization that doesn't retain symbol
pre-emptibility in shared libraries and hence is disabled when generating PIC
code. All these failures are because the tests are trying to create non-PIC
.so's with section anchors turned on.

The tests need to be fixed with respect to section anchors by building them
with -fno-section-anchors for the arm-linux-gnueabi port.


The Objective C testsuite failures should be fixed by disabling section anchors
in the objective C and C++ frontend and not by disabling this in the backend. 

Look at the mail thread here for reference. 

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg02194.html

However that is a subject of a separate bug report, though these failures might
be related to PR41617. Hence this is an INVALID bug as far as GCC is concerned
and hence marking it so.

cheers
Ramana




-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684