* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-14 22:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-14 22:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-14 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|testsuite |driver
Keywords| |lto
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
make ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-14 22:25 ` [Bug driver/109135] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-14 22:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-14 22:36 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-14 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
lto-wrapper.cc use MAKE env if it exists:
char **make_argv = buildargv (getenv ("MAKE"));
if (make_argv)
{
for (unsigned argc = 0; make_argv[argc]; argc++)
obstack_ptr_grow (&argv_obstack, make_argv[argc]);
}
else
obstack_ptr_grow (&argv_obstack, "make");
obstack_ptr_grow (&argv_obstack, "-f");
obstack_ptr_grow (&argv_obstack, makefile);
if (!jobserver)
{
snprintf (jobs, 31, "-j%ld",
auto_parallel ? nthreads_var : parallel);
obstack_ptr_grow (&argv_obstack, jobs);
}
But I don't see why gmake is failing to set MAKE env correctly here ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-14 22:25 ` [Bug driver/109135] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-14 22:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-14 22:36 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2023-03-14 23:06 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2023-03-14 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
> make ...
>
That explains why groping around in gcc/testsuite for
a rogue make or MAKE was coming up empty.
I'm in the middle of doing a serial 'gmake check-fortran',
which takes a long time on my system. Is there a way
to invoke only lto testing?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-14 22:36 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2023-03-14 23:06 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2023-03-14 23:14 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2023-03-14 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +0000, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
> > make ...
> >
>
> That explains why groping around in gcc/testsuite for
> a rogue make or MAKE was coming up empty.
>
> I'm in the middle of doing a serial 'gmake check-fortran',
> which takes a long time on my system. Is there a way
> to invoke only lto testing?
So, 'gmake check-fortran' finishes without any lto issues.
It seems one must invoke the checking with 'gmake -j6 check-fortran'
to get failures.
Looking in obj/gcc/Makefile at line 341 I see the comment
# Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
followed by no checking to see if MAKE is defined.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-14 23:06 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2023-03-14 23:14 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2023-03-15 8:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-15 14:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2023-03-14 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +0000, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
> > make ...
> >
>
> That explains why groping around in gcc/testsuite for
> a rogue make or MAKE was coming up empty.
>
> I'm in the middle of doing a serial 'gmake check-fortran',
> which takes a long time on my system. Is there a way
> to invoke only lto testing?
>
Answered my own question.
% gmake RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=pr71526.f90" check-fortran
...
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 1
% gmake -j 1 RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=pr71526.f90" check-fortran
...
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 1
% gmake -j 2 RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=pr71526.f90" check-fortran
...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr71526.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of unexpected failures 1
% setenv MAKE gmake
% gmake -j 2 RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=pr71526.f90" check-fortran
...
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 1
So, the work around is to explicitly set MAKE to gmake before
running the testsuite.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-14 23:14 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2023-03-15 8:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-15 14:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-15 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +0000, sgk at troutmask dot
> apl.washington.edu wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:25:53PM +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > > This is not a testsuite issue but rather the issue is the lto code is calling
> > > make ...
> > >
> >
> > That explains why groping around in gcc/testsuite for
> > a rogue make or MAKE was coming up empty.
> >
> > I'm in the middle of doing a serial 'gmake check-fortran',
> > which takes a long time on my system. Is there a way
> > to invoke only lto testing?
>
> So, 'gmake check-fortran' finishes without any lto issues.
> It seems one must invoke the checking with 'gmake -j6 check-fortran'
> to get failures.
>
> Looking in obj/gcc/Makefile at line 341 I see the comment
>
> # Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
>
> followed by no checking to see if MAKE is defined.
Makefile.in has
# Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
@SET_MAKE@
configure has
if eval test \$ac_cv_prog_make_${ac_make}_set = yes; then
{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: yes" >&5
$as_echo "yes" >&6; }
SET_MAKE=
else
{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: no" >&5
$as_echo "no" >&6; }
SET_MAKE="MAKE=${MAKE-make}"
fi
from AC_PROG_MAKE_SET which seems to check whether make sets $MAKE.
That appearantly succeeds for you. Do you "properly" do sth like
MAKE=gmake ../configure
so configure sees which make you are using? I think if your gmake
doesn't set it then even recursive configure invocations from gmake
will resort to 'make'
but then I _think_ that gmake itself sets $MAKE (if it was not set?) for
sub-processes. But maybe only if it thinks its recursive make?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug driver/109135] Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite
2023-03-14 22:23 [Bug testsuite/109135] New: Wrong make utility called with LTO testsuite kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-15 8:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-15 14:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2023-03-15 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 08:35:41AM +0000, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109135
>
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:27PM +0000, sgk at troutmask dot
> > apl.washington.edu wrote:
> >
> > Looking in obj/gcc/Makefile at line 341 I see the comment
> >
> > # Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
> >
> > followed by no checking to see if MAKE is defined.
>
> Makefile.in has
>
> # Make sure the $(MAKE) variable is defined.
> @SET_MAKE@
>
> configure has
>
> if eval test \$ac_cv_prog_make_${ac_make}_set = yes; then
> { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: yes" >&5
> $as_echo "yes" >&6; }
> SET_MAKE=
> else
> { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: no" >&5
> $as_echo "no" >&6; }
> SET_MAKE="MAKE=${MAKE-make}"
> fi
>
> from AC_PROG_MAKE_SET which seems to check whether make sets $MAKE.
> That appearantly succeeds for you. Do you "properly" do sth like
>
> MAKE=gmake ../configure
>
> so configure sees which make you are using? I think if your gmake
No. I simply use '../configure ; gmake -j6 bootstrap'.
This has worked for years. I'm currently using GNU
make 4.3. If MAKE is not being set to gmake, then I
would expect bootstrap to fail.
I plan to run gmake with debugging output, and need to
check gmake.info to see how to dump the environment
information.
> doesn't set it then even recursive configure invocations from gmake
> will resort to 'make'
>
> but then I _think_ that gmake itself sets $MAKE (if it was not set?) for
> sub-processes. But maybe only if it thinks its recursive make?
I suppose I'll start using the 'MAKE=gmake ..' form or some variation
as I use tcsh.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread