* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
@ 2014-11-19 13:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-23 17:39 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-19 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
2014-11-19 13:30 ` [Bug middle-end/62247] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-23 17:39 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-23 17:40 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-23 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
2014-11-19 13:30 ` [Bug middle-end/62247] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-23 17:39 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-23 17:40 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-01 12:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-23 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-23 17:40 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-12-01 12:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-07 15:49 ` [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-01 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-01 12:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-07 15:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-08 15:20 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-07 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-07 15:49 ` [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-08 15:20 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-08 15:35 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-08 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-08 15:20 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-08 15:35 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2015-02-08 16:43 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2015-02-08 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-08 15:35 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2015-02-08 16:43 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2015-02-09 2:02 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2015-02-08 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-08 16:43 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2015-02-09 2:02 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-17 22:16 ` law at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-09 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-09 2:02 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-17 22:16 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-18 3:12 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-17 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-17 22:16 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2015-02-18 3:12 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2015-03-08 23:47 ` [Bug target/62247] " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2015-02-18 3:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/62247] [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-18 3:12 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2015-03-08 23:47 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-22 11:58 ` [Bug target/62247] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-08 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/62247] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-08 23:47 ` [Bug target/62247] " danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-22 11:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-22 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/62247] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
2014-08-24 15:21 [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
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-22 11:58 ` [Bug target/62247] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-16 9:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-16 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread