* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-09-29 15:09 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-23 13:52 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-29 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This fails the same way on 32-bit arm. Presumably some difference in
libbacktrace support.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-29 15:09 ` [Bug libstdc++/111641] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-11-23 13:52 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-23 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host|hppa*-*-linux* |hppa*-*-linux*,
| |*-*-solaris2.11
Build|hppa*-*-linux* |hppa*-*-linux*,
| |*-*-solaris2.11
Target|hppa*-*-linux* |hppa*-*-linux*,
| |*-*-solaris2.11
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm seeing the same failures on Solaris (both sparc and x86):
* On x86, it's 32-bit only.
* On sparc, it's both 32 and 64-bit:
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc:52:
test_max_depth()::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>::<lambda()>:
Assertion '! t.empty()' failed.
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::out_of_range'
what(): basic_stack_trace::at: bad frame number
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::out_of_range'
what(): basic_stacktrace::at: bad frame number
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc:40:
void test_cons(): Assertion '! s3.empty()' failed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-09-29 15:09 ` [Bug libstdc++/111641] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-23 13:52 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-23 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 112541 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-22 14:24 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-23 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host|hppa*-*-linux*, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Build|hppa*-*-linux*, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
Target|hppa*-*-linux*, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2023-11-23
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Also seen on cris-elf and m68k-linux so not specific to
armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf
It appears that __stacktrace_impl::_S_current returns an empty sequence of
frames.
It's possible that all the lambda frames are inlined, or skip+2 in
stacktrace.cc causes us to skip real frames that we should keep, or maybe
libbacktrace just doesn't work on this target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-11-23 16:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-22 14:24 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2024-05-23 8:36 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2024-05-22 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> It's possible that all the lambda frames are inlined, or skip+2 in
> stacktrace.cc causes us to skip real frames that we should keep, or maybe
> libbacktrace just doesn't work on this target.
In the Solaris case, the libbacktrace tests all PASS on all of 32 and
64-bit SPARC and x86.
The stacktrace failures only happen on 32-bit x86; 64-bit x86 is fine.
I'm now trying a debug build and plan to compare i386 and amd64 side by
side to find differences.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-22 14:24 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2024-05-23 8:36 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2024-05-23 9:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2024-05-23 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot
> Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>
>> It's possible that all the lambda frames are inlined, or skip+2 in
>> stacktrace.cc causes us to skip real frames that we should keep, or maybe
>> libbacktrace just doesn't work on this target.
[...]
> The stacktrace failures only happen on 32-bit x86; 64-bit x86 is fine.
>
> I'm now trying a debug build and plan to compare i386 and amd64 side by
> side to find differences.
While that didn't produce anything useful, I noticed that both
libbacktrace and its testcases are built with -funwind-tables.
Checking what gcc does for that option, here's what I found:
* 64-bit x86 defaults to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables, thus implicitly
-funwind-tables, too. For that reason, the stacktrace tests PASS on
both Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/amd64.
* 32-bit x86 defaults to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables *if*
-fomit-frame-pointer is enabled. This is the case on Linux/i686, thus
the PASSes, while Solaris/i386 defaults to -fno-omit-frame-pointer,
thus the FAILs observed.
* Solaris never enables -funwind-tables by default, thus the FAILs on
both Solaris/SPARC and Linux/SPARC.
When I manually rebuild libstdc++-v3/src/libbacktrace with -g3 -O0
-funwind-tables and a testcase, too, it PASSes.
The question is how to proceed, though: while one could enable
-funwind-tables unconditionally in src/libbacktrace/Makefile.am (it's
done this way in other runtimes libs) and add -funwind-tables to the
affected testcases using dg-additional-options, I wonder if that
produces a satisfying user experience in the end. Maybe it's better to
just default to -funwind-tables in g++ instead?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-23 8:36 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2024-05-23 9:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-28 14:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-23 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 58276
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58276&action=edit
Minimal patch
Minimal patch as described: just build src/libbacktrace with -funwind-tables,
same for 19_diagnostics/stacktrace tests.
Ran just the stacktrace tests on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11
(32 and 64-bit each), all PASS now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-23 9:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-28 14:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-29 8:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-28 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
URL| |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
| |il/gcc-patches/2024-May/652
| |912.html
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Patch posted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-28 14:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-29 8:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-29 8:12 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-29 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Rainer Orth <ro@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a99ebb88f8f25e76ebed5afc22e64fa77a2f0d3f
commit r15-890-ga99ebb88f8f25e76ebed5afc22e64fa77a2f0d3f
Author: Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date: Wed May 29 10:08:07 2024 +0200
libstdc++: Build libbacktrace and 19_diagnostics/stacktrace with
-funwind-tables [PR111641]
Several of the 19_diagnostics/stacktrace tests FAIL on Solaris/SPARC (32
and 64-bit), Solaris/x86 (32-bit only), and several other targets:
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
As it turns out, both the copy of libbacktrace in libstdc++ and the
testcases proper need to compiled with -funwind-tables, as is done for
libbacktrace itself.
This isn't an issue on Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/amd64 since 64-bit x86
always defaults to -funwind-tables. 32-bit x86 does, too, when
-fomit-frame-pointer is enabled as on Linux/i686, but unlike
Solaris/i386.
So this patch always enables the option both for the libbacktrace copy
and the testcases.
Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
2024-05-23 Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
libstdc++-v3:
PR libstdc++/111641
* src/libbacktrace/Makefile.am (AM_CFLAGS): Add -funwind-tables.
* src/libbacktrace/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc (dg-options): Add
-funwind-tables.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/hash.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc: Likewise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-29 8:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-29 8:12 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-29 9:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-29 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|15.0 |14.2
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 15.0; will commit to the gcc-14 branch after a bit of soak time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-29 8:12 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-29 9:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-29 12:03 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-29 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Dave, does this fix it for hppa-linux-gnu too?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-29 9:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-29 12:03 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2024-05-29 12:17 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2024-05-29 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It will be a few days before I can test. I've had three hard drives fail on my
main hppa
system in the past few weeks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-29 12:03 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2024-05-29 12:17 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2024-06-01 12:20 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2024-05-29 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> It will be a few days before I can test. I've had three hard drives fail on my
> main hppa
> system in the past few weeks.
I guess it's best to postpone committing to the gcc-14 branch until you
can report hppa results then. Btw., when you're ready, could you also
check the libbacktrace test results (no .sum file, unfortunately, just
buried deeply in make check output) for comparison? Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-29 12:17 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2024-06-01 12:20 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2024-06-03 14:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2024-06-01 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2024-05-29 8:17 a.m., ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
>
> --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
>> It will be a few days before I can test. I've had three hard drives fail on my
>> main hppa
>> system in the past few weeks.
> I guess it's best to postpone committing to the gcc-14 branch until you
> can report hppa results then. Btw., when you're ready, could you also
> check the libbacktrace test results (no .sum file, unfortunately, just
> buried deeply in make check output) for comparison? Thanks.
Change fixes the following libstdc++ tests on hppa-linux:
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
The libbacktrace tests all pass on hppa-linux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2024-06-01 12:20 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2024-06-03 14:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2024-06-04 7:10 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2024-06-03 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2024-05-29 8:17 a.m., ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
>>
>> --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec
>> dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>>> --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
>>> It will be a few days before I can test. I've had three hard drives
>>> fail on my
>>> main hppa
>>> system in the past few weeks.
>> I guess it's best to postpone committing to the gcc-14 branch until you
>> can report hppa results then. Btw., when you're ready, could you also
>> check the libbacktrace test results (no .sum file, unfortunately, just
>> buried deeply in make check output) for comparison? Thanks.
> Change fixes the following libstdc++ tests on hppa-linux:
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
> FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
>
> The libbacktrace tests all pass on hppa-linux.
Hi Dave,
thanks for checking. I guess it's reasonably safe to backport the patch
to the gcc-14 branch then.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2024-06-03 14:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2024-06-04 7:10 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-04 7:11 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-13 13:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-04 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Rainer Orth <ro@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d92b508dd19daffedfc0fb02e5bfa710f2c397b0
commit r14-10274-gd92b508dd19daffedfc0fb02e5bfa710f2c397b0
Author: Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date: Wed May 29 10:08:07 2024 +0200
libstdc++: Build libbacktrace and 19_diagnostics/stacktrace with
-funwind-tables [PR111641]
Several of the 19_diagnostics/stacktrace tests FAIL on Solaris/SPARC (32
and 64-bit), Solaris/x86 (32-bit only), and several other targets:
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc -std=gnu++26 execution test
As it turns out, both the copy of libbacktrace in libstdc++ and the
testcases proper need to compiled with -funwind-tables, as is done for
libbacktrace itself.
This isn't an issue on Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/amd64 since 64-bit x86
always defaults to -funwind-tables. 32-bit x86 does, too, when
-fomit-frame-pointer is enabled as on Linux/i686, but unlike
Solaris/i386.
So this patch always enables the option both for the libbacktrace copy
and the testcases.
Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
2024-05-23 Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
libstdc++-v3:
PR libstdc++/111641
* src/libbacktrace/Makefile.am (AM_CFLAGS): Add -funwind-tables.
* src/libbacktrace/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc (dg-options): Add
-funwind-tables.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/entry.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/hash.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/output.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/19_diagnostics/stacktrace/stacktrace.cc: Likewise.
(cherry picked from commit a99ebb88f8f25e76ebed5afc22e64fa77a2f0d3f)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2024-06-04 7:10 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-06-04 7:11 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-13 13:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-04 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 14.2, too.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/111641] FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test
2023-09-29 14:49 [Bug libstdc++/111641] New: FAIL: 19_diagnostics/stacktrace/current.cc -std=gnu++23 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2024-06-04 7:11 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-06-13 13:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-13 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Nice - thank you both. I think we can close this.
libstdc++_libbacktrace.a does exist on the gcc-13 branch, but isn't enabled by
default so you probably aren't seeing these FAILs there.
If anybody starts to enable it on these targets and needs the fix, we can
backport it later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread