[Bug middle-end/62247] New: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[Bug middle-end/62247] New: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

            Bug ID: 62247
           Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98
                    scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
              Host: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
            Target: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
             Build: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11

Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/
anon3.C  -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never  -nostdinc++
-I/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/include/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11
.11 -I/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/include
-I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++
-I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/backwa
rd -I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util -fmessage-length=0 
-std=c++98  -pedantic-errors -Wno-long-long  -S   -o anon3.s    (timeout = 300)
spawn /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -fno-
diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -nostdinc++
-I/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/include/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
-I/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/libstdc++-v3/include
-I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++
-I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/backward
-I/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util -fmessage-length=0 -std=c++98
-pedantic-errors -Wno-long-long -S -o anon3.s
PASS: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98 (test for excess errors)PASS:
g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_
ZN4Heya4blahEvFAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler
.weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZTI4HeyaPASS: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98 
scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZTV4HeyaPASS: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C 
-std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN4Heya1A1fEv
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_ZTIN4Heya1AE
PASS: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_ZTVN4Heya1AE

Similar fail:
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak[ \t]_?_ZTSPP1A

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We now have:

FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTI4Heya
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTIN4Heya1AE
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++11  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTI4Heya
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++11  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTIN4Heya1AE
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++14  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTI4Heya
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C  -std=c++14  scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[
\t]_?_
ZTIN4Heya1AE
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C  -std=c++98  scan-assembler .weak[ \t]_?_ZTSPP1A
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C  -std=c++11  scan-assembler .weak[ \t]_?_ZTSPP1A
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C  -std=c++14  scan-assembler .weak[ \t]_?_ZTSPP1A

as of r217956.

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 34079
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34079&action=edit
Assembler output

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With cross-compiler I get the same anon3.s (no .weak occurrences in the
assembly) as in 4.9.  As neither the test nor dg-require-weak seems to have
changed, I guess the important questions are:
1) can you compare 4.9.2 and 5.0.0 generated assembly?
2) does the test in 4.9.2 PASS or is it UNSUPPORTED?
3) has something changed in auto-host.h, such as previously HAVE_GAS_WEAK and
now no longer true or something similar?
4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
that happen?

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 34696
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34696&action=edit
4.9 assembler output

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
> 
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> With cross-compiler I get the same anon3.s (no .weak occurrences in the
> assembly) as in 4.9.  As neither the test nor dg-require-weak seems to have
> changed, I guess the important questions are:
> 1) can you compare 4.9.2 and 5.0.0 generated assembly?

Attached assembler output from 4.9.3 20150207.

The assembly output from 5.0.0 is wierd.  It has a few nop's which make up body
of function:

virtual void Heya::A::f()
...
(insn 2 11 3 (set (mem/f/c:SI (reg/f:SI 28 %r28 [98]) [0 this+0 S4 A32])
        (reg:SI 26 %r26 [ this ]))
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/an
on3.C:14 40 {*pa.md:2204}
     (nil))
(note 3 2 8 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)(insn 8 3 18 (const_int 0 [0])
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/anon3.
C:14 213 {nop}
     (nil))
(note 18 8 19 NOTE_INSN_EPILOGUE_BEG)

> 2) does the test in 4.9.2 PASS or is it UNSUPPORTED?

The test passes in 4.9.2.

> 3) has something changed in auto-host.h, such as previously HAVE_GAS_WEAK and
> now no longer true or something similar?

Both 4.9 and 5.0 have:

/* Define if your assembler supports .weak. */
#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
#define HAVE_GAS_WEAK 1
#endif


/* Define if your assembler supports .weakref. */
#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
#define HAVE_GAS_WEAKREF 1
#endif

> 4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
> that happen?


Will try to narrow this down.

Dave
--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> 4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
> that happen?

>From test logs:
r214122 was okay and r214400 failed.

Dave
--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Introduced in r214176:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=214177

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[law at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P1                          |P4
                 CC|                            |law at redhat dot com

--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
HPPA isn't a primary architecture, adjusting priority

[Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-17, at 5:16 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:

> HPPA isn't a primary architecture, adjusting priority

Why?  P1 was set by Richard, a release maintainer, and the regression was
introduced by an identified
two line change.  There hasn't been any comment from Jason on the matter, so I
don't know if there's
anything I can do to resolve the bug.

Weak support is important for c++ support and it seems unfair to downgrade to
what is essentially WONTFIX.

I understand that HPPA shouldn't block release, but many others have worked to
resolve bugs affecting HPPA.

At this point, we don't even know if this is simply a testsuite issue or not.

Dave
--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug target/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Mar  8 23:46:34 2015
New Revision: 221271

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR target/62247
    * g++.dg/abi/anon3.C: Skip failing scan-assembler checks on
    hppa*-*-hpux*.
    * g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C: Likewise.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/anon3.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C

[Bug target/62247] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|5.0                         |5.2

--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.1 has been released.

[Bug target/62247] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|5.2                         |5.3

--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone to 5.3.