From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AD83858C5E for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:14:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 95AD83858C5E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECFDC14; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 02:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.52.9] (unknown [10.57.52.9]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0EEE3F587; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 02:14:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:14:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: C++ modules and AAPCS/ARM EABI clash on inline key methods Content-Language: en-GB To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, nathan@acm.org, nickc@redhat.com, richard.earnshaw@arm.com, ramana.gcc@gmail.com, kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com References: <05cf53e4-af4d-7af1-da4b-3635345db9bf@foss.arm.com> <4f555382-6c59-4574-c2a2-d50608c70908@foss.arm.com> From: Richard Earnshaw In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3495.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 22/02/2023 19:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 21, 2023, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >> Rather than scanning for the triplet, a better test would be > >> { xfail { arm_eabi } } > > Indeed, thanks. Here's the updated patch, retested. Ok to install? Based on Nathan's comments, we should just skip the test on arm_eabi, it's simply not applicable. R. > > > [PR105224] C++ modules and AAPCS/ARM EABI clash on inline key methods > > From: Alexandre Oliva > > g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C fails on arm-eabi and many other arm targets > that use the AAPCS variant. ARM is the only target that overrides > TARGET_CXX_KEY_METHOD_MAY_BE_INLINE. It's not clear to me which way > the clash between AAPCS and C++ Modules design should be resolved, but > currently it favors AAPCS and thus the test fails. > > Skipping the test or conditionally dropping the inline keyword breaks > subsequent tests, so I'm XFAILing the expectation that vtable and rtti > symbols are output on arm_eabi targets. > > > for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > PR c++/105224 > * g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C: XFAIL syms on arm_eabi. > --- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C > index 580552be5a0d8..f5d68878f50fb 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/virt-2_a.C > @@ -22,6 +22,6 @@ export int Visit (Visitor *v) > } > > // Emit here > -// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTVW3foo7Visitor:} } } > -// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTIW3foo7Visitor:} } } > -// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTSW3foo7Visitor:} } } > +// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTVW3foo7Visitor:} { xfail { arm_eabi } } } } > +// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTIW3foo7Visitor:} { xfail { arm_eabi } } } } > +// { dg-final { scan-assembler {_ZTSW3foo7Visitor:} { xfail { arm_eabi } } } } > >