On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 12:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 10:08, Thomas Schwinge > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On 2023-06-07T09:12:31+0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 08:13, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> >> On 2023-06-06T20:31:21+0100, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 20:14, Thomas Schwinge < >> thomas@codesourcery.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> This issue comes up in context of me working on C++ support for GCN >> and >> >> >> nvptx target. Those targets shall default to '-fno-exceptions' -- >> or, >> >> >> "in other words", '-fexceptions' is not supported. (Details omitted >> >> >> here.) >> >> >> >> >> >> It did seem clear to me that with such a configuration it'll be >> hard to >> >> >> get clean test results. Then I found code in >> >> >> 'gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp:gcc-dg-prune': >> >> >> >> >> >> # If exceptions are disabled, mark tests expecting exceptions >> to be >> >> >> enabled >> >> >> # as unsupported. >> >> >> if { ![check_effective_target_exceptions_enabled] } { >> >> >> if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*: error: exception handling >> disabled" >> >> >> $text] { >> >> >> return "::unsupported::exception handling disabled" >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> ..., which, in a way, sounds as if the test suite generally is >> meant to >> >> >> produce useful results for '-fno-exceptions', nice surprise! >> >> >> >> >> >> Running x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (not yet GCN, nvptx) 'make check' with: >> >> >> >> >> >> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-fno-exceptions\{,-m32\}' >> >> >> >> >> >> ..., I find that indeed this does work for a lot of test cases, >> where we >> >> >> then get (random example): >> >> >> >> >> >> PASS: g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C (test for errors, line 23) >> >> >> -PASS: g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C (test for excess errors) >> >> >> +UNSUPPORTED: g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C: exception handling >> >> disabled >> >> >> >> >> >> ..., due to: >> >> >> >> >> >> [...]/g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C: In function 'task >> my_coro()': >> >> >> +[...]/g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C:18:10: error: exception >> handling >> >> >> disabled, use '-fexceptions' to enable >> >> >> [...]/g++.dg/coroutines/pr99710.C:23:7: error: await >> expressions >> >> are >> >> >> not permitted in handlers >> >> >> compiler exited with status 1 >> >> >> >> >> >> But, we're nowhere near clean test results: PASS -> FAIL as well as >> >> >> XFAIL -> XPASS regressions, due to 'error: exception handling >> disabled' >> >> >> precluding other diagnostics seems to be one major issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there interest in me producing the obvious (?) changes to those >> test >> >> >> cases, such that compiler g++ as well as target library libstdc++ >> test >> >> >> results are reasonably clean? (If you think that's all "wasted >> effort", >> >> >> then I suppose I'll just locally ignore any >> FAILs/XPASSes/UNRESOLVEDs >> >> >> that appear in combination with >> >> >> 'UNSUPPORTED: [...]: exception handling disabled'.) >> >> > >> >> > I would welcome that for libstdc++. >> >> >> >> Assuming no issues found in testing, OK to push the attached >> >> "Support 'UNSUPPORTED: [...]: exception handling disabled' for >> libstdc++ >> >> testing"? >> >> (Thanks, Jozef!) >> > >> > Yes please. >> >> Pushed commit r14-1604-g5faaabef3819434d13fcbf749bd07bfc98ca7c3c >> "Support 'UNSUPPORTED: [...]: exception handling disabled' for libstdc++ >> testing" >> to master branch, as posted. >> >> For one-week-old GCC commit 2720bbd597f56742a17119dfe80edc2ba86af255, >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, I see no changes without '-fno-exceptions' (as >> expected), and otherwise: >> >> === libstdc++ Summary for >> [-unix-]{+unix/-fno-exceptions+} === >> >> # of expected passes [-15044-]{+12877+} >> # of unexpected failures [-5-]{+10+} >> # of expected failures [-106-]{+77+} >> {+# of unresolved testcases 6+} >> # of unsupported tests [-747-]{+1846+} >> >> As expected, there's a good number of (random example): >> >> -PASS: 18_support/105387.cc (test for excess errors) >> -PASS: 18_support/105387.cc execution test >> +UNSUPPORTED: 18_support/105387.cc: exception handling disabled >> >> ..., plus the following: >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} 23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc (test >> for excess errors) >> >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc:101: >> error: non-constant condition for static assertion >> In file included from >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc:6: >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc:101: >> in 'constexpr' expansion of 'test_shrink_to_fit()' >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_hooks.h:56: error: >> '__builtin_fprintf(stderr, ((const char*)"%s:%d: %s: Assertion \'%s\' >> failed.\012"), ((const >> char*)"[...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc"), >> 92, ((const char*)"constexpr bool test_shrink_to_fit()"), ((const >> char*)"v.capacity() == 0"))' is not a constant expression >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_hooks.h:66: note: in >> expansion of macro '_VERIFY_PRINT' >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/constexpr.cc:92: >> note: in expansion of macro 'VERIFY' >> compiler exited with status 1 >> >> ..., and: >> >> PASS: 23_containers/vector/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc (test for excess >> errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} 23_containers/vector/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc >> execution test >> >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/vector/capacity/shrink_to_fit.cc:33: >> void test01(): Assertion 'v.size() == v.capacity()' failed. >> >> ..., and: >> >> PASS: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/pod/23875.cc (test for >> excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} >> 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/pod/23875.cc execution test >> >> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_cast' >> what(): std::bad_cast >> >> ..., and: >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> (test for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} >> ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc [-execution >> test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc: >> In function 'int main()': >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc:29: >> error: 'check_allocate_max_size' is not a member of '__gnu_test' >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc:29: >> error: expected primary-expression before '>' token >> >> [...]/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/bitmap_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc:29: >> error: expected primary-expression before ')' token >> >> ..., and similarly: >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/malloc_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> (test for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} >> ext/malloc_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc [-execution >> test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/mt_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc (test >> for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} ext/mt_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> [-execution test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/new_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc (test >> for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} ext/new_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> [-execution test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/pool_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> (test for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} >> ext/pool_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc [-execution >> test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> [-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} ext/throw_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc >> (test for excess errors) >> [-PASS:-]{+UNRESOLVED:+} >> ext/throw_allocator/check_allocate_max_size.cc [-execution >> test-]{+compilation failed to produce executable+} >> >> That's all! :-) >> >> Given my limited C++ language and libstdc++ implementation skills, it's >> probably more effective if you address these? But I'll of course give it >> a try if you'd like me to. >> > > Yes, I'll fix those, thanks for the heads up. > > Done at r14-1612-gfa8b4468e0d124 I didn't fix 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/pod/23875.cc yet though.