* Re: Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
@ 2014-11-05 20:30 jb999
2015-01-15 8:13 ` Jeff Law
2015-01-15 8:29 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jb999 @ 2014-11-05 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
"Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>On 10/23/14 08:30, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>>
>>> On 10/21/14 12:21, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>>>>> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>>>>>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>>>>> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>>>>> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>>>>
>>>>> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
>>>>
>>>> When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
>>>>
>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>> I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
>>> down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
>>
>> I'm not a dejagnu expert, but this is what happens:
>>
>> /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
>> /tmp/cc4rrWCn.o: In function `main':
>> crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'
>> /tmp/ccgMlXGi.o:crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>> compiler exited with status 1
>Thanks.
>What's weird here is the source file is listed twice on the command
>line! No wonder it's failing.
>I can't typically decipher tcl code without trace info and some
>send_user commands to see what the values of various things are.
>[...]
>Though I have no idea how that's expected to work in an LTO enabled compile.
With LTO enabled it runs just fine (which is the reason for the patch I suggested):
spawn /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
spawn /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x02
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
2014-11-05 20:30 Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c jb999
@ 2015-01-15 8:13 ` Jeff Law
2015-01-15 8:29 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2015-01-15 8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jb999, gcc-patches
On 11/05/14 13:30, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>> On 10/23/14 08:30, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>>> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/14 12:21, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>>>>> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>>>>>> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>>>>>>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>>>>>> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>>>>>> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
>>>>>
>>>>> When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>>> I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
>>>> down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
>>>
>>> I'm not a dejagnu expert, but this is what happens:
>>>
>>> /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
>>> /tmp/cc4rrWCn.o: In function `main':
>>> crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'
>>> /tmp/ccgMlXGi.o:crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
>>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>>> compiler exited with status 1
>> Thanks.
>
>> What's weird here is the source file is listed twice on the command
>> line! No wonder it's failing.
>
>> I can't typically decipher tcl code without trace info and some
>> send_user commands to see what the values of various things are.
>> [...]
>> Though I have no idea how that's expected to work in an LTO enabled compile.
>
> With LTO enabled it runs just fine (which is the reason for the patch I suggested):
It's definitely some wacky dejagnu nonsense going on.
So if I run both crossmodule-indircall "tests" (yes I know one is an
auxiliary file, but what I'm doing emulates what happen inside all the
dejagnu/tcl/expect insanity):
Running /home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
So, yea, in a --disable-lto toolchain I can reproduce you problem.
Now it gets interesting. Let's run the two tests independently.
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp=crossmodule-indircall-1.c"
[ ...]
Running target unix
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file
for target.
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for
target.
Using /home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
=== gcc Summary ===
# of unsupported tests 1
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp=crossmodule-indircall-1a.c"
[ ... ]
Running target unix
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file
for target.
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for
target.
Using /home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /home/gcc/GIT-2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 4
/home/tmp/gcc3/gcc/xgcc version 5.0.0 20150115 (experimental) (GCC)
Umm, WTF. if I run them independently, everything works as expected.
Clearly state from running crossmodule-indircall-1.c is affecting how we
"test" crossmodule-indircall-1a.c.
I'm pretty sure we don't want to "fix" crossmodule-indircall-1a.c, but
that the bug is in the dejagnu/tcl/expect code.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
2014-11-05 20:30 Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c jb999
2015-01-15 8:13 ` Jeff Law
@ 2015-01-15 8:29 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2015-01-15 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jb999, gcc-patches
On 11/05/14 13:30, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>
> With LTO enabled it runs just fine (which is the reason for the patch I suggested):
This is definitely a testing framework problem. The profopt framework
isn't clearing the "additional_whatever" variables. Presumably failure
to clear is specific to a test failing or being unsupported as I'd
expect all kinds of failures if we never cleared those variables.
My head hurts, I haven't had to read this much expect/tcl in nearly 20
years. But I'm totally certain we shouldn't be hacking up the source
code to deal with the defect in the testing harness.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
2014-10-23 14:35 jb999
@ 2014-10-24 20:18 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2014-10-24 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jb999, gcc-patches
On 10/23/14 08:30, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>
>> On 10/21/14 12:21, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
>>> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>>>> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>>>>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>>>>
>>>>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>>>> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>>>> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>>>
>>>> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
>>>
>>> When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
>>>
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>> I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
>> down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
>
> I'm not a dejagnu expert, but this is what happens:
>
> /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
> /tmp/cc4rrWCn.o: In function `main':
> crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'
> /tmp/ccgMlXGi.o:crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> compiler exited with status 1
Thanks.
What's weird here is the source file is listed twice on the command
line! No wonder it's failing.
I can't typically decipher tcl code without trace info and some
send_user commands to see what the values of various things are. But
the following seems, umm, odd:
profopt.exp:
set extra_flags [profopt-get-options $src]
[ ... ]
set options "$extra_options"
lappend options "additional_flags=$option $extra_flags
$profile_option"
set comp_output [${tool}_target_compile "$src" "$execname1"
executable $options]
Note $src passed to the target_compile procedure as an argument and also
inside the string $options.
I'd think that's the real problem here. Though I have no idea how
that's expected to work in an LTO enabled compile.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
@ 2014-10-23 14:35 jb999
2014-10-24 20:18 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: jb999 @ 2014-10-23 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
"Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
> On 10/21/14 12:21, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
> > "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
> >> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
> >>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
> >>>
> >>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
> >> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
> >> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
> >
> >> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
> >
> > When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
> >
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
> > UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
> > UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
> > UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
> I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
> down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
I'm not a dejagnu expert, but this is what happens:
/tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/ /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
/tmp/cc4rrWCn.o: In function `main':
crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'
/tmp/ccgMlXGi.o:crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
compiler exited with status 1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
2014-10-21 18:23 jb999
@ 2014-10-22 21:34 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2014-10-22 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jb999, gcc-patches
On 10/21/14 12:21, jb999@gmx.de wrote:
> "Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>>
>>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>
>> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
>
> When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
@ 2014-10-21 18:23 jb999
2014-10-22 21:34 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: jb999 @ 2014-10-21 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
"Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>:
>On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>
>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
2014-10-21 16:15 Haswell
@ 2014-10-21 18:12 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2014-10-21 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Haswell, gcc-patches
On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
> The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>
> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
@ 2014-10-21 16:15 Haswell
2014-10-21 18:12 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Haswell @ 2014-10-21 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
The additional source must have the same requirement crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
* crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
diff -Nur a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c 2013-08-10 00:53:00.000000000 +0200
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c 2014-10-21 16:06:46.715580336 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+/* { dg-require-effective-target lto } */
/* It seems there is no way to avoid the other source of mulitple
source testcase from being compiled independently. Just avoid
error. */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-15 7:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-11-05 20:30 Re: [PATCH] Add missing requirement to crossmodule-indircall-1a.c jb999
2015-01-15 8:13 ` Jeff Law
2015-01-15 8:29 ` Jeff Law
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-10-23 14:35 jb999
2014-10-24 20:18 ` Jeff Law
2014-10-21 18:23 jb999
2014-10-22 21:34 ` Jeff Law
2014-10-21 16:15 Haswell
2014-10-21 18:12 ` Jeff Law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).