[Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin10

["iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883

--- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #33)
> Changed the summary to x86_64-apple-darwin10 (this probably affects
> powerpc-apple-darwin9 also).

correct; there is one additional needed for ppc-darwin9 and x86-darwin{9,10}

I have a suitable patch, and as discussed on irc with Jonathan had intended to
apply that version; unfortunately between investigating ipa-icf issues and
being out of the office in the US, haven't had a chance so far (thanks to
Jonathan for applying the interim one).

.. will apply an incremental change for earlier darwin as "obvious" at the
first available opportunity (unless anyone has an objection) … (about to
re-sync trunk and test).
>From gcc-bugs-return-479589-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Mar 06 16:57:31 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-479589-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 113583 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2015 16:57:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 113524 invoked by uid 48); 6 Mar 2015 16:57:27 -0000
From: "boger at us dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: go
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: boger at us dot ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ian at airs dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64999-4-lgoUY2Vz2c@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64999-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64999-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00733.txt.bz2
Content-length: 907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd999

--- Comment #36 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I'd like to take a step back and clarify what the functions in question,
runtime_callers, runtime.Caller, and runtime.Callers should be returning:  the
pc values for the call instruction, or the pc values from the instruction
following the call?

The golang documentation for runtime.Callers says it is the pc for the
instruction after the call so I will assume that is what we want for that one.

For runtime.Caller I believe it is supposed to return the call instruction
itself but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Since runtime.Callers calls runtime_callers, I assume runtime_callers should be
providing the instruction after the call.  That means all callers of
runtime_callers should be decrementing pc values to the previous instruction if
the call instruction is what they want.

Does this sound right?