From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 185F13858D32; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 18:12:58 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 185F13858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1712686378; bh=OccPWRevklm4tswMY4X/L+Agjt8iHQdWlJJ3d8DXs/0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=GOzPGZItOvKWlegsFopfDqFGr/wv2mo/xCHiLdyYC6cKOd/H9QAn/NQu56XDxJYfa jY2mECoyONhFvnlkhS7rPHh/vAEooVouuJQ0LmcLaAKZCHi0l9aZcH7+bJB212YzL+ ev/0fJag842tfaS6ErNmtmDo0gCzxjG0eCBmUWHM= From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/114642] new test case gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-datasec-3.c from r14-6195-gb8cf266f4ca4ff fails for 32 bits Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 18:12:57 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: david.faust at oracle dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114642 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Faust : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:639215c5eb6c56ba3830cd868d1d3ddd700b4c90 commit r14-9878-g639215c5eb6c56ba3830cd868d1d3ddd700b4c90 Author: David Faust Date: Mon Apr 8 13:33:48 2024 -0700 btf: improve btf-datasec-3.c test [PR114642] This test failed on powerpc --target_board=3Dunix'{-m32}' because two variables were not placed in sections where the test silently (and incorrectly) assumed they would be. The important thing for the test is only that BTF_KIND_DATASEC entries are NOT generated for the extern variable declarations without an explicit section attribute. Make the test more robust by placing the non-extern variables in explicit sections, and invert the checks to more accurately verify what we care about in this test. gcc/testsuite/ PR testsuite/114642 * gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-datasec-3.c: Make test more robust on different architectures.=