[Bug regression/53130] New: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[Bug regression/53130] New: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[hp at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130

             Bug #: 53130
           Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c,
                    gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: regression
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hp@gcc.gnu.org
                CC: jakub@gcc.gnu.org, manu@gcc.gnu.org
              Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
            Target: cris-elf, x86_86-linux, s390x-linux, i686-linux


These tests previously passed, now they fail.
A patch in the revision range (last_known_working:first_known_failing)
186805:186809
exposed or caused these regressions.  Since then they fail as follows:

Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c near init (test for warnings, line 30)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c  (test for warnings, line 34)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c  (test for warnings, line 41)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c  (test for warnings, line 44)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c near init (test for warnings, line 27)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c (test for excess errors)
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/m-un-2.c warning regression 2 (test for warnings, line 12)
FAIL: gcc.dg/m-un-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c  (test for warnings, line 7)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c  (test for warnings, line 8)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c  (test for warnings, line 14)
FAIL: gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c (test for excess errors)


The messages in gcc.log are similar:

Executing on host: /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20011021-1.c 
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret   -std=c99 -W -Wall -Wtraditional -S   -isystem
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib/targ-include -isystem
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/newlib/libc/include  -o 20011021-1.s    (timeout =
300)
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20011021-1.c:30:8: warning:
missing initializer for field 'b' of 'struct t' [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
'
in c_tree_printer, at c-objc-common.c:136
Please submit a full bug report,
...
Executing on host: /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/m-un-2.c 
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret   -W -Wall -S   -isystem
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib/targ-include -isystem
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/newlib/libc/include  -o m-un-2.s    (timeout = 300)
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/m-un-2.c:18:1: warning: missing
initializer for field '_realloc' of 'struct vtable'
[-Wmissing-field-initializers]
'
in c_tree_printer, at c-objc-common.c:136
Please submit a full bug report,
...
Executing on host: /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/gcc/
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c 
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret   -Wmissing-field-initializers -std=c99 -S  
-isystem /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib/targ-include
-isystem /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/newlib/libc/include  -o
missing-field-init-2.s    (timeout = 300)
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c:6:8:
warning: missing initializer for field 'c' of 'struct s'
[-Wmissing-field-initializers]
'
in c_tree_printer, at c-objc-common.c:136
Please submit a full bug report,
...

Authors of suspect patches in revision range CC:ed.

It seems these tests fail for all major architectures (3 out of 3 for the
latest messages on gcc-testresults@ at the time of this writing).

[Bug regression/53130] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-04-26
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-26 20:30:11 UTC ---
I am testing this patch:

Index: gcc/c-typeck.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/c-typeck.c      (revision 186821)
+++ gcc/c-typeck.c      (working copy)
@@ -7063,11 +7063,11 @@ pop_init_level (int implicit, struct obs
            if (warning_at (input_location, OPT_Wmissing_field_initializers,
                            "missing initializer for field %qD of %qT",
                            constructor_unfilled_fields,
                            constructor_type))
              inform (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (constructor_unfilled_fields),
-                     "%qT declared here", constructor_unfilled_fields);
+                     "%qD declared here", constructor_unfilled_fields);
          }
     }

   /* Pad out the end of the structure.  */
   if (p->replacement_value.value)

[Bug regression/53130] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130

--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-27 08:22:01 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:21:49 2012
New Revision: 186896

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186896
Log:
2012-04-25  Manuel López-Ibáñez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR c/53130
    * c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): Use %qD instead of %qT.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/c-typeck.c

[Bug regression/53130] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-27 08:22:49 UTC ---
FIXED.

[Bug regression/53130] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/20011021-1.c, gcc.dg/m-un-2.c, gcc.dg/missing-field-init-2.c

[hp at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130

--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-28 00:32:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> FIXED.

No; gcc.dg/20011021-1.c didn't actually pass after your changes, there's a
missing warning.  I'll clone this PR, as it's supposedly a separate issue.