Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Franz Sirl]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
To: davem@gcc.gnu.org,
 gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
 gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
 ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu,
 nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
 rth@redhat.com,
 davem@redhat.com,
 jakub@redhat.com,
 mark@codesourcery.com,
 gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 00:35:06 +0200

 On Monday 06 May 2002 22:23, Franz Sirl wrote:
 > On Monday 06 May 2002 08:03, davem@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
 > > Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in
 > > compile/20011119-2.c
 > >
 > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->sirl
 > > Responsible-Changed-By: davem
 > > Responsible-Changed-When: Sun May  5 23:03:04 2002
 > > Responsible-Changed-Why:
 > >     On request by Mark.
 > >
 > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gc
 > >c& pr=6569
 >
 > Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the bootstrap
 > hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the placing of the
 > warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it sometimes seems
 > olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped compared to their sourcefile
 > ordering.
 
 FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
 
 Franz.
 

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[mmitchel]

Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: mmitchel
State-Changed-When: Wed May  8 07:49:42 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Fixed in GCC 3.1.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6569

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Franz Sirl]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>,
 "davem@gcc.gnu.org" <davem@gcc.gnu.org>,
 "davem@redhat.com" <davem@redhat.com>,
 "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
 "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
 "jakub@redhat.com" <jakub@redhat.com>,
 "nobody@gcc.gnu.org" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
 "rth@redhat.com" <rth@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression 
  in compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:35:02 +0200

 --=====================_26563516==_
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
 
 At 16:40 07.05.2002, Mark Mitchell wrote:
 
 
 >--On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 03:14:49 PM +0200 Franz Sirl 
 ><Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> wrote:
 >
 >>At 14:45 07.05.2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 >>>  > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
 >>>  >
 >>>  > >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the
 >>>  > >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the
 >>>  > >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it
 >>>  > >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped
 >>>  > >> compared to their sourcefile ordering.
 >>>  > >
 >>>  > > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
 >>>  >
 >>>  > OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and
 >>>  > check it in.
 >>>
 >>>Unfortunately, the patch did not solve the problem listed in the PR.
 >>>I still get the same 'as' errors from compile/20011119-2.c
 >>>
 >>>compile/20011119-2.c:3: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first
 >>>use  results in unspecified behavior
 >>>/usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccQOIg1d.s", line 51: error: invalid operand
 >>>--------------------------------------------------^^^^^
 >>
 >>Yeah, I managed to get access to a solaris-2.8 machine, even though I
 >>wasn't able to bootstrap with Solaris as/ld (see below), I was able to
 >>reproduce the failure. Re-checking on x86-linux-gnu revealed that it even
 >>doesn't fix the problem there, so I must have mixed something up
 >>yesterday. Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss here, cause I've tried several
 >>strategies yesterday and they either didn't fix the testcase or caused
 >>some of the weak tests to fail. Especially I tried to use the TREE_USED
 >>flag of the WEAK_DECLS TREE_LIST to mark when a weak already had been
 >>assembled, but it didn't work out :-(. I seem to misunderstand something
 >>about how the tree structures are handled.
 >
 >I'll look into this problem.
 
 FYI, this is the patch I'm currently playing with, it would fix 20011119-2, 
 but these fail:
 
 FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^     ]*[     ]ffoo1b
 FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^     ]*[     ]ffoo1c
 FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^     ]*[     ]ffoo1e
 FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-5.c scan-assembler weak[^     ]*[     ]vfoo1b
 FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-5.c scan-assembler weak[^     ]*[     ]vfoo1c
 
 I don't understand what I'm doing wrong :-(.
 
 Franz.
 
 --=====================_26563516==_
 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="gcc-weaksym-9x1.patch"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gcc-weaksym-9x1.patch"
 
 SW5kZXg6IGdjYy92YXJhc20uYwo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09ClJDUyBmaWxlOiAvY3Zzcm9vdC9nY2MvZ2Nj
 L2djYy92YXJhc20uYyx2CnJldHJpZXZpbmcgcmV2aXNpb24gMS4yNTAuMi45CmRpZmYgLXUgLXAg
 LXIxLjI1MC4yLjkgdmFyYXNtLmMKLS0tIGdjYy92YXJhc20uYwkxIE1heSAyMDAyIDE4OjAzOjM0
 IC0wMDAwCTEuMjUwLjIuOQorKysgZ2NjL3ZhcmFzbS5jCTcgTWF5IDIwMDIgMTU6Mjc6MTIgLTAw
 MDAKQEAgLTE2Niw2ICsxNjYsNyBAQCBzdGF0aWMgdW5zaWduZWQgSE9TVF9XSURFX0lOVCBhcnJh
 eV9zaXplCiBzdGF0aWMgdW5zaWduZWQgbWluX2FsaWduCQlQQVJBTVMgKCh1bnNpZ25lZCwgdW5z
 aWduZWQpKTsKIHN0YXRpYyB2b2lkIG91dHB1dF9jb25zdHJ1Y3RvcgkJUEFSQU1TICgodHJlZSwg
 SE9TVF9XSURFX0lOVCwKIAkJCQkJCSB1bnNpZ25lZCBpbnQpKTsKK3N0YXRpYyB2b2lkIGRlY2xh
 cmVfd2Vha18xCQlQQVJBTVMgKCh0cmVlLCBpbnQpKTsKIHN0YXRpYyB2b2lkIGdsb2JhbGl6ZV9k
 ZWNsCQlQQVJBTVMgKCh0cmVlKSk7CiBzdGF0aWMgaW50IGluX25hbWVkX2VudHJ5X2VxCQlQQVJB
 TVMgKChjb25zdCBQVFIsIGNvbnN0IFBUUikpOwogc3RhdGljIGhhc2h2YWxfdCBpbl9uYW1lZF9l
 bnRyeV9oYXNoCVBBUkFNUyAoKGNvbnN0IFBUUikpOwpAQCAtNTAxMCwxNiArNTAxMSwxOCBAQCBt
 ZXJnZV93ZWFrIChuZXdkZWNsLCBvbGRkZWNsKQogCSAgfHwgISBUUkVFX1NUQVRJQyAoZGVjbCkp
 CiAgICAgICAmJiBUUkVFX1VTRUQgKGRlY2wpCiAgICAgICAmJiBUUkVFX1NZTUJPTF9SRUZFUkVO
 Q0VEIChERUNMX0FTU0VNQkxFUl9OQU1FIChkZWNsKSkpCi0gICAgd2FybmluZ193aXRoX2RlY2wg
 KGRlY2wsICJ3ZWFrIGRlY2xhcmF0aW9uIG9mIGAlcycgYWZ0ZXIgZmlyc3QgdXNlIHJlc3VsdHMg
 aW4gdW5zcGVjaWZpZWQgYmVoYXZpb3IiKTsKKyAgICB3YXJuaW5nX3dpdGhfZGVjbCAobmV3ZGVj
 bCwgIndlYWsgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gb2YgYCVzJyBhZnRlciBmaXJzdCB1c2UgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiB1
 bnNwZWNpZmllZCBiZWhhdmlvciIpOwogCi0gIGRlY2xhcmVfd2VhayAoZGVjbCk7CisgIGRlY2xh
 cmVfd2Vha18xIChkZWNsLCBERUNMX1dFQUsgKG5ld2RlY2wpKTsKIH0KIAotLyogRGVjbGFyZSBE
 RUNMIHRvIGJlIGEgd2VhayBzeW1ib2wuICAqLworLyogRGVjbGFyZSBERUNMIHRvIGJlIGEgd2Vh
 ayBzeW1ib2wsIHB1dCBpdCBvbiB0aGUgV0VBS19ERUNMUyBsaXN0CisgICBpZiBORVcgaXMgc2V0
 LiAgKi8KIAotdm9pZAotZGVjbGFyZV93ZWFrIChkZWNsKQorc3RhdGljIHZvaWQKK2RlY2xhcmVf
 d2Vha18xIChkZWNsLCBuZXcpCiAgICAgIHRyZWUgZGVjbDsKKyAgICAgaW50IG5ldzsKIHsKICAg
 aWYgKCEgVFJFRV9QVUJMSUMgKGRlY2wpKQogICAgIGVycm9yX3dpdGhfZGVjbCAoZGVjbCwgIndl
 YWsgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gb2YgYCVzJyBtdXN0IGJlIHB1YmxpYyIpOwpAQCAtNTAyNyw4ICs1MDMw
 LDE2IEBAIGRlY2xhcmVfd2VhayAoZGVjbCkKICAgICBlcnJvcl93aXRoX2RlY2wgKGRlY2wsICJ3
 ZWFrIGRlY2xhcmF0aW9uIG9mIGAlcycgbXVzdCBwcmVjZWRlIGRlZmluaXRpb24iKTsKICAgZWxz
 ZSBpZiAoU1VQUE9SVFNfV0VBSykKICAgICB7Ci0gICAgICBpZiAoISBERUNMX1dFQUsgKGRlY2wp
 KQotCXdlYWtfZGVjbHMgPSB0cmVlX2NvbnMgKE5VTEwsIGRlY2wsIHdlYWtfZGVjbHMpOworICAg
 ICAgdHJlZSAqcCwgdDsKKyAgICAgIGZvciAocCA9ICZ3ZWFrX2RlY2xzOyAodCA9ICpwKTsgcCA9
 ICZUUkVFX0NIQUlOICh0KSkKKwlpZiAoREVDTF9BU1NFTUJMRVJfTkFNRSAoZGVjbCkgPT0gREVD
 TF9BU1NFTUJMRVJfTkFNRSAoVFJFRV9WQUxVRSAodCkpKQorCSAgYnJlYWs7CisKKyAgICAgIGlm
 ICghIHQpCisJeworCSAgd2Vha19kZWNscyA9IHRyZWVfY29ucyAoTlVMTCwgZGVjbCwgd2Vha19k
 ZWNscyk7CisJICBUUkVFX1VTRUQgKHdlYWtfZGVjbHMpID0gMDsKKwl9CiAgICAgfQogICBlbHNl
 CiAgICAgd2FybmluZ193aXRoX2RlY2wgKGRlY2wsICJ3ZWFrIGRlY2xhcmF0aW9uIG9mIGAlcycg
 bm90IHN1cHBvcnRlZCIpOwpAQCAtNTA0Miw2ICs1MDUzLDE1IEBAIGRlY2xhcmVfd2VhayAoZGVj
 bCkKICAgICBTWU1CT0xfUkVGX1dFQUsgKFhFWFAgKERFQ0xfUlRMIChkZWNsKSwgMCkpID0gMTsK
 IH0KIAorLyogRGVjbGFyZSBERUNMIHRvIGJlIGEgd2VhayBzeW1ib2wuICAqLworCit2b2lkCitk
 ZWNsYXJlX3dlYWsgKGRlY2wpCisgICAgIHRyZWUgZGVjbDsKK3sKKyAgZGVjbGFyZV93ZWFrXzEg
 KGRlY2wsIDEpOworfQorCiAvKiBFbWl0IGFueSBwZW5kaW5nIHdlYWsgZGVjbGFyYXRpb25zLiAg
 Ki8KIAogdm9pZApAQCAtNTA1NCw3ICs1MDc0LDcgQEAgd2Vha19maW5pc2ggKCkKICAgICAgIHRy
 ZWUgZGVjbCA9IFRSRUVfVkFMVUUgKHQpOwogICAgICAgY29uc3QgY2hhciAqbmFtZSA9IElERU5U
 SUZJRVJfUE9JTlRFUiAoREVDTF9BU1NFTUJMRVJfTkFNRSAoZGVjbCkpOwogCi0gICAgICBpZiAo
 ISBUUkVFX1VTRUQgKGRlY2wpKQorICAgICAgaWYgKFRSRUVfVVNFRCAodCkgfHwgISBUUkVFX1VT
 RUQgKGRlY2wpKQogCWNvbnRpbnVlOwogCiAjaWZkZWYgQVNNX1dFQUtFTl9ERUNMCkBAIC01MDk2
 LDkgKzUxMTYsOCBAQCBnbG9iYWxpemVfZGVjbCAoZGVjbCkKICAgICAgIGZvciAocCA9ICZ3ZWFr
 X2RlY2xzOyAodCA9ICpwKSA7ICkKIAl7CiAJICBpZiAoREVDTF9BU1NFTUJMRVJfTkFNRSAoZGVj
 bCkgPT0gREVDTF9BU1NFTUJMRVJfTkFNRSAoVFJFRV9WQUxVRSAodCkpKQotCSAgICAqcCA9IFRS
 RUVfQ0hBSU4gKHQpOwotCSAgZWxzZQotCSAgICBwID0gJlRSRUVfQ0hBSU4gKHQpOworCSAgICBU
 UkVFX1VTRUQgKHQpID0gMTsKKwkgIHAgPSAmVFJFRV9DSEFJTiAodCk7CiAJfQogICAgICAgcmV0
 dXJuOwogICAgIH0KQEAgLTUxODYsNyArNTIwNSw3IEBAIG1ha2VfZGVjbF9vbmVfb25seSAoZGVj
 bCkKICAgICAgIERFQ0xfT05FX09OTFkgKGRlY2wpID0gMTsKICAgICB9CiAgIGVsc2UgaWYgKFNV
 UFBPUlRTX1dFQUspCi0gICAgREVDTF9XRUFLIChkZWNsKSA9IDE7CisgICAgZGVjbGFyZV93ZWFr
 IChkZWNsKTsKICAgZWxzZQogICAgIGFib3J0ICgpOwogfQo=
 --=====================_26563516==_--
 

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[mmitchel]

Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

Responsible-Changed-From-To: sirl->mmitchel
Responsible-Changed-By: mmitchel
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue May  7 07:47:34 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
    I'm hoping I'll have better luck...

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6569

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Mark Mitchell]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>,
   "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Cc: "davem@gcc.gnu.org" <davem@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "davem@redhat.com" <davem@redhat.com>,
   "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "jakub@redhat.com" <jakub@redhat.com>,
   "nobody@gcc.gnu.org" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "rth@redhat.com" <rth@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression  in
 compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 07:40:55 -0700

 --On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 03:14:49 PM +0200 Franz Sirl 
 <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> wrote:
 
 > At 14:45 07.05.2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 >>  > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
 >>  >
 >>  > >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the
 >>  > >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the
 >>  > >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it
 >>  > >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped
 >>  > >> compared to their sourcefile ordering.
 >>  > >
 >>  > > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
 >>  >
 >>  > OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and
 >>  > check it in.
 >>
 >> Unfortunately, the patch did not solve the problem listed in the PR.
 >> I still get the same 'as' errors from compile/20011119-2.c
 >>
 >> compile/20011119-2.c:3: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first
 >> use  results in unspecified behavior
 >> /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccQOIg1d.s", line 51: error: invalid operand
 >> --------------------------------------------------^^^^^
 >
 > Yeah, I managed to get access to a solaris-2.8 machine, even though I
 > wasn't able to bootstrap with Solaris as/ld (see below), I was able to
 > reproduce the failure. Re-checking on x86-linux-gnu revealed that it even
 > doesn't fix the problem there, so I must have mixed something up
 > yesterday. Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss here, cause I've tried several
 > strategies yesterday and they either didn't fix the testcase or caused
 > some of the weak tests to fail. Especially I tried to use the TREE_USED
 > flag of the WEAK_DECLS TREE_LIST to mark when a weak already had been
 > assembled, but it didn't work out :-(. I seem to misunderstand something
 > about how the tree structures are handled.
 
 I'll look into this problem.
 
 Thanks,
 
 --
 Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
 CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
 

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Franz Sirl]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Cc: davem@gcc.gnu.org,davem@redhat.com,gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
 gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,jakub@redhat.com,
 mark@codesourcery.com,nobody@gcc.gnu.org,rth@redhat.com
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression
  in compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 15:14:49 +0200

 At 14:45 07.05.2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 >  > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
 >  >
 >  > >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the
 >  > >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the
 >  > >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it
 >  > >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped compared to
 >  > >> their sourcefile ordering.
 >  > >
 >  > > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
 >  >
 >  > OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and check it
 >  > in.
 >
 >Unfortunately, the patch did not solve the problem listed in the PR.
 >I still get the same 'as' errors from compile/20011119-2.c
 >
 >compile/20011119-2.c:3: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first use 
 >results in unspecified behavior
 >/usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccQOIg1d.s", line 51: error: invalid operand
 >--------------------------------------------------^^^^^
 
 Yeah, I managed to get access to a solaris-2.8 machine, even though I 
 wasn't able to bootstrap with Solaris as/ld (see below), I was able to 
 reproduce the failure. Re-checking on x86-linux-gnu revealed that it even 
 doesn't fix the problem there, so I must have mixed something up yesterday. 
 Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss here, cause I've tried several strategies 
 yesterday and they either didn't fix the testcase or caused some of the 
 weak tests to fail. Especially I tried to use the TREE_USED flag of the 
 WEAK_DECLS TREE_LIST to mark when a weak already had been assembled, but it 
 didn't work out :-(. I seem to misunderstand something about how the tree 
 structures are handled.
 
 Franz.
 
 PS:
 The bootstrap failure with solaris-2.8 as/ld and configured with:
 
           --enable-shared \
           --enable-threads \
           --with-system-zlib \
           --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr/local \
           sparc-sun-solaris2.8
 
 This results in:
 
 ...
 strcpy                              0x42c 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/dyn-string.o
 strdup                              0x694 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/cxa_demangle.o
 __iob                               0x45e8 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/cxa_demangle.o
 __iob                               0x4634 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/cxa_demangle.o
 __iob                               0x4644 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/cxa_demangle.o
 __iob                               0x4654 
 .libs/libstdc++.lax/libsupc++convenience.a/cxa_demangle.o
 ld: fatal: relocations remain against allocatable but non-writable sections
 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
 make[4]: *** [libstdc++.la] Error 1
 make[4]: Leaving directory 
 `/home/gnu/obj/gcc31/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libstdc++-v3/src'
 

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
To: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, davem@gcc.gnu.org, davem@redhat.com,
        gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
        jakub@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
        rth@redhat.com
Cc:  
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:45:31 -0400 (EDT)

  > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
  > 
  > >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the
  > >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the
  > >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it
  > >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped compared to
  > >> their sourcefile ordering.
  > >
  > > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
  > 
  > OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and check it
  > in.
 
 Unfortunately, the patch did not solve the problem listed in the PR.
 I still get the same 'as' errors from compile/20011119-2.c
 
 compile/20011119-2.c:3: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first use results in unspecified behavior
 /usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccQOIg1d.s", line 51: error: invalid operand
 --------------------------------------------------^^^^^
 
 See test results here:
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-05/msg00234.html
 
 --
 Kaveh R. Ghazi			Director of Systems Architecture
 ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Global Services

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[Mark Mitchell]

The following reply was made to PR target/6569; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>,
   "davem@gcc.gnu.org" <davem@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>,
   "nobody@gcc.gnu.org" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "rth@redhat.com" <rth@redhat.com>, "davem@redhat.com" <davem@redhat.com>,
   "jakub@redhat.com" <jakub@redhat.com>,
   "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in
 compile/20011119-2.c
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 15:38:03 -0700

 --On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:35:06 AM +0200 Franz Sirl 
 <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> wrote:
 
 > On Monday 06 May 2002 22:23, Franz Sirl wrote:
 >> On Monday 06 May 2002 08:03, davem@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
 >> > Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in
 >> > compile/20011119-2.c
 >> >
 >> > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->sirl
 >> > Responsible-Changed-By: davem
 >> > Responsible-Changed-When: Sun May  5 23:03:04 2002
 >> > Responsible-Changed-Why:
 >> >     On request by Mark.
 >> >
 >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database
 >> > =gc c& pr=6569
 >>
 >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the
 >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the
 >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it
 >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped compared to
 >> their sourcefile ordering.
 >
 > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully.
 
 OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and check it
 in.
 
 --
 Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
 CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
 

Re: target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[davem]

Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->sirl
Responsible-Changed-By: davem
Responsible-Changed-When: Sun May  5 23:03:04 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
    On request by Mark.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6569

target/6569: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c

[ghazi]

>Number:         6569
>Category:       target
>Synopsis:       sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite regression in compile/20011119-2.c
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun May 05 21:56:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Kaveh Ghazi
>Release:        gcc version 3.1 20020505 (prerelease)
>Organization:
>Environment:
sparc-sun-solaris2.7 native as/ld
>Description:
Sometime between 4/26 and 4/29, compile/20011119-2.c regressed.  It worked here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg01050.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg01168.html

It fails here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg01165.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg01120.html

When I compile it by hand using today's checkout, I get:

compile/20011119-2.c:1: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first use results in unspecified behavior
/usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccrCbkea.s", line 51: error: invalid operand

I've attached the .s output.

>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
----gnatsweb-attachment----
Content-Type: text/plain; name="20011119-2.s"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="20011119-2.s"

	.file	"20011119-2.c"
	.section	".text"
	.align 4
	.global bar
	.type	bar,#function
	.proc	04
bar:
	!#PROLOGUE# 0
	save	%sp, -112, %sp
	!#PROLOGUE# 1
	call	foo, 0
	 nop
	mov	%o0, %i0
	nop
	ret
	restore
.LLfe1:
	.size	bar,.LLfe1-bar
	.weak	foo
	foo = xxx
	.align 4
	.global baz
	.type	baz,#function
	.proc	04
baz:
	!#PROLOGUE# 0
	save	%sp, -112, %sp
	!#PROLOGUE# 1
	call	foo, 0
	 nop
	mov	%o0, %i0
	nop
	ret
	restore
.LLfe2:
	.size	baz,.LLfe2-baz
	.align 4
	.global xxx
	.type	xxx,#function
	.proc	04
xxx:
	!#PROLOGUE# 0
	save	%sp, -112, %sp
	!#PROLOGUE# 1
	mov	23, %i0
	nop
	ret
	restore
.LLfe3:
	.size	xxx,.LLfe3-xxx
	.weak	foo
	.ident	"GCC: (GNU) 3.1 20020505 (prerelease)"