[Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

             Bug #: 57188
           Summary: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64:
                    No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: ada
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: ro@gcc.gnu.org
                CC: charlet@gcc.gnu.org
              Host: amd64-pc-solaris2.1[01]
            Target: amd64-pc-solaris2.1[01]
             Build: amd64-pc-solaris2.1[01]


For at least two weeks, Ada bootstrap on Solaris/x64 (i.e. the 64-bit-default
configuration) is broken:

ro@arenal 26 > ../../gnatbind -I- -I../rts -I.
-I/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/ada -o b_gnatm.adb gnatmake.ali
error: "system.ads" has restriction No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code
error: but the following files violate this restriction:
error:   "make.adb"
error:   "makeutl.adb"
error:   "prj.adb"
error:   "prj-env.adb"
error:   "prj-conf.adb"
error:   "prj-proc.adb"
error:   "prj-nmsc.adb"

This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
configurations.

  Rainer

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-05-06
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-06 16:55:04 UTC ---
> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
> configurations.

gcc-interface/Makefile.in was a little changed so you probably need to adjust
the relevant regexp here:

# x86 and x86-64 solaris
ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
  LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.9.0

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-05-07 14:57:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-06 16:55:04 UTC ---
>> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
>> configurations.
>
> gcc-interface/Makefile.in was a little changed so you probably need to adjust
> the relevant regexp here:
>
> # x86 and x86-64 solaris
> ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
>   LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \

That was it indeed.  The following patch restored amd64-pc-solaris2.10
bootstrap for, and also survived i386-pc-solaris2.11 bootstrap:

diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
--- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
@@ -1098,7 +1098,7 @@ ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out sparc% sun so
 endif

 # x86 and x86-64 solaris
-ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
+ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 %amd64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
   LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \
   a-intnam.ads<a-intnam-solaris.ads \
   s-inmaop.adb<s-inmaop-posix.adb \

But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?

2013-04-23  Eric Botcazou  <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
            Pascal Obry    <obry@adacore.com>

        * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check.

Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found
in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me.

    Rainer

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07 15:06:45 UTC ---
> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
> posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
> 
> 2013-04-23  Eric Botcazou  <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
>             Pascal Obry    <obry@adacore.com>
> 
>         * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check.
> 
> Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found
> in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me.

The ChangeLog entry is misleading, neither Pascal nor I have anything to do
with the change.  Yes, this is very fragile and has already caused various
issues.

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-05-07 15:09:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07
> 15:06:45 UTC ---
>> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
>> posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
>> 
>> 2013-04-23  Eric Botcazou  <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
>>             Pascal Obry    <obry@adacore.com>
>> 
>>         * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check.
>> 
>> Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found
>> in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me.
>
> The ChangeLog entry is misleading, neither Pascal nor I have anything to do
> with the change.  Yes, this is very fragile and has already caused various
> issues.

This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change.  I
suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed.

    Rainer

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07 16:04:07 UTC ---
> This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change.  I
> suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed.

I'd post it on the list in any case and see what the other maintainers think.

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
                   |                            |atches/2013-05/msg00394.htm
                   |                            |l
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-08 09:29:11 UTC ---
Mine, patch posted.

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[charlet at adacore dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com <charlet at adacore dot com> ---
> >>         * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check.
> >> 
> >> Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found
> >> in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me.
> >
> > The ChangeLog entry is misleading, neither Pascal nor I have anything to
> > do
> > with the change.  Yes, this is very fragile and has already caused various
> > issues.
> 
> This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change.  I
> suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed.

This change is useful for many cross configurations which have similar
names, so I would suggest you post your patch to gcc-patches@.
Your patch is pre-approved FWIW, so feel free to apply it.

Arno

Re: [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[Arnaud Charlet]

> >>         * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check.
> >> 
> >> Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found
> >> in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me.
> >
> > The ChangeLog entry is misleading, neither Pascal nor I have anything to
> > do
> > with the change.  Yes, this is very fragile and has already caused various
> > issues.
> 
> This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change.  I
> suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed.

This change is useful for many cross configurations which have similar
names, so I would suggest you post your patch to gcc-patches@.
Your patch is pre-approved FWIW, so feel free to apply it.

Arno

[Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 4.9.0.