From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E466C3987C11; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:36:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E466C3987C11 From: "nathan at acm dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/98531] [11 Regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2_a.H etc. FAIL Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:36:32 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: nathan at acm dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:36:33 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98531 --- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell --- On 1/27/21 8:30 AM, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98531 >=20 > --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > Nathan, >=20 > last night I've tried the patch you posted on both i386-pc-solaris2.11 > and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, with mixed results: >=20 > * The new g++.dg/modules/pr98531_* testcases PASS. >=20 > * However, there's a libstdc++ regression: >=20 > +FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) > +FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2011/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) > +FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2014/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) > +FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2017/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) >=20 > Excess errors: > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/cxxabi.h:129: error: > declaration of 'int __cxxabiv1::__cxa_atexit(void (*)(void*), void*, void= *) > throw ()' has a different exception specifier thanks, I'm finding this too -- thankful I didn;t push the patch! this=20 is indicative there is a mismatch between the runtime library and the=20 compiler's idea of it. >=20 > i.e. >=20 > In file included from > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1= 998/all_attributes.cc:40: > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/cxxabi.h:129: error: > declaration of 'int __cxxabiv1::__cxa_atexit(void (*)(void*), void*, void= *) > throw ()' has a different exception specifier > In file included from > /var/gcc/regression/master/11.4-gcc/build/i386-pc-solaris2.11/libstdc++-v= 3/include/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bits/extc++.h:68, > from > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/headers/c++1= 998/all_attributes.cc:39: > /var/gcc/regression/master/11.4-gcc/build/i386-pc-solaris2.11/libstdc++-v= 3/include/ext/throw_allocator.h:371: > note: from previous declaration 'int __cxxabiv1::__cxa_atexit(void (*)(vo= id*), > void*, void*)' >=20 > where cxxabi.h has >=20 > #ifdef _GLIBCXX_CDTOR_CALLABI > __cxa_atexit(void (_GLIBCXX_CDTOR_CALLABI *)(void*), void*, void*) > _GLIBCXX_NOTHROW; > #else > __cxa_atexit(void (*)(void*), void*, void*) _GLIBCXX_NOTHROW; > #endif >=20 > * Besides, the ICE in the original testcases remains: >=20 > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2= _a.H: > internal compiler error: in tree_node, at cp/module.cc:9137 >=20 >=20 > I'm uncertain if the patch was just meant as a preparatory step to fix > those or something else is amiss. thanks, I was going to revisit the original report to see if there were=20 further issues. nathan=