* 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
@ 1997-10-01 15:11 Joe Buck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-01 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs team
Here are results for 970929 on sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1.
What's new are teh libstdc++ failures, which are link problems.
The demangler doesn't recognize these symbols. Is this related to the
new treatment of template functions mentioned earlier?
For tcomplex:
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
sin__g1Zd_RCcomplex_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
__dv__l1Zd_RCcomplexT0_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
cos__g1Zd_RCcomplex_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
sqrt__l1Zd_RCcomplex_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
__rs__11Zd_R7istreamRcomplex_R7istream /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
__ls__l1Zd_R7ostreamRCcomplex_R7ostream /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
For tstring:
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
__rs___2ZcZt18string_char_traits1Zc_R7istreamRbasic_string_R7istream /var/tmp/cca005Pq1.o
__ls__b2ZcZt18string_char_traits1Zc_R7ostreamRCbasic_string_R7ostream /var/tmp/cca005Pq1.o
Here are the rest of the results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
gcc results:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/961203-1.c, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/961203-1.c, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/961203-1.c, -O2
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/961203-1.c, -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2f.c execution, -O2
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2f.c execution, -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2f.c execution, -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions -funroll-loops
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2f.c execution, -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions -funroll-all-loops
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 4881
# of unexpected failures 8
# of expected failures 4
# of unsupported tests 6
g++ results:
FAIL: g++.brendan/arm3.C previous declaration (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.brendan/arm3.C previously declared (test for errors, line 9)
FAIL: g++.brendan/template9.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.jason/template38.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.law/arg7.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.law/missed-error2.C extern (test for errors, line 20)
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 3368
# of unexpected failures 7
# of expected failures 83
# of untested testcases 6
libstdc++ results:
Using ./config/default.exp as tool-and-target-specific interface file.
FAIL: tcomplex.cc compilation
FAIL: tcomplex.cc -O compilation
FAIL: tstring.cc compilation
FAIL: tstring.cc -O compilation
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 18
# of unexpected failures 4
# of expected failures 8
libio results:
=== libio Summary ===
# of expected passes 40
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <199710012211.PAA28962.cygnus.egcs@atrus.synopsys.com>]
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
[not found] <199710012211.PAA28962.cygnus.egcs@atrus.synopsys.com>
@ 1997-10-01 18:18 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 1:59 ` Torbjorn Lindgren
1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 1997-10-01 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Buck, egcs
>>>>> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
> sin__g1Zd_RCcomplex_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
Arrgh. This is a bug in the mangling code; that should be __F1Z, not
__g1Z. However, I don't understand why it's failing; it seems to be a
miscompilation of build_decl_overload_real. Does this patch fix
the problem?
Tue Sep 30 08:51:36 1997 Jason Merrill <jason@yorick.cygnus.com>
* method.c (build_decl_overload_real): Reformat.
Index: method.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/gcc/cp/method.c,v
retrieving revision 1.158
retrieving revision 1.159
diff -c -r1.158 -r1.159
*** method.c 1997/09/30 07:20:51 1.158
--- method.c 1997/09/30 15:54:09 1.159
***************
*** 1157,1164 ****
TREE_CHAIN (parms));
}
}
else
! OB_PUTC ((tparms != NULL_TREE) ? 'H' : 'F');
if (tparms)
{
--- 1157,1166 ----
TREE_CHAIN (parms));
}
}
+ else if (tparms)
+ OB_PUTC ('H');
else
! OB_PUTC ('F');
if (tparms)
{
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-01 18:18 ` Jason Merrill
@ 1997-10-02 1:59 ` Torbjorn Lindgren
1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Torbjorn Lindgren @ 1997-10-02 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Joe Buck, egcs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1376 bytes --]
On 1 Oct 1997, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
>
> > sin__g1Zd_RCcomplex_complex /var/tmp/cca005N51.o
>
> Arrgh. This is a bug in the mangling code; that should be __F1Z, not
> __g1Z. However, I don't understand why it's failing; it seems to be a
> miscompilation of build_decl_overload_real. Does this patch fix
> the problem?
>
> Tue Sep 30 08:51:36 1997 Jason Merrill <jason@yorick.cygnus.com>
>
> * method.c (build_decl_overload_real): Reformat.
>
> Index: method.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/gcc/cp/method.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.158
> retrieving revision 1.159
> diff -c -r1.158 -r1.159
> *** method.c 1997/09/30 07:20:51 1.158
> --- method.c 1997/09/30 15:54:09 1.159
> ***************
> *** 1157,1164 ****
> TREE_CHAIN (parms));
> }
> }
> else
> ! OB_PUTC ((tparms != NULL_TREE) ? 'H' : 'F');
>
> if (tparms)
> {
> --- 1157,1166 ----
> TREE_CHAIN (parms));
> }
> }
> + else if (tparms)
> + OB_PUTC ('H');
> else
> ! OB_PUTC ('F');
>
> if (tparms)
> {
>
--
Torbjörn Lindgren
Karenlyst Allè 5, N-0277 Oslo, Norway Phone: +47 22420102
E-mail: tl@funcom.com
If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-01 18:18 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 1:59 ` Torbjorn Lindgren
@ 1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 11:23 ` Chip Salzenberg
1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-02 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: jbuck, egcs
Jason writes:
> Arrgh. This is a bug in the mangling code; that should be __F1Z, not
> __g1Z. However, I don't understand why it's failing; it seems to be a
> miscompilation of build_decl_overload_real. Does this patch fix
> the problem?
No, in fact, with this patch, *all* the libstdc++ tests fail to compile.
Patch is below.
> Tue Sep 30 08:51:36 1997 Jason Merrill <jason@yorick.cygnus.com>
>
> * method.c (build_decl_overload_real): Reformat.
>
> Index: method.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/gcc/cp/method.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.158
> retrieving revision 1.159
> diff -c -r1.158 -r1.159
> *** method.c 1997/09/30 07:20:51 1.158
> --- method.c 1997/09/30 15:54:09 1.159
> ***************
> *** 1157,1164 ****
> TREE_CHAIN (parms));
> }
> }
> else
> ! OB_PUTC ((tparms != NULL_TREE) ? 'H' : 'F');
>
> if (tparms)
> {
> --- 1157,1166 ----
> TREE_CHAIN (parms));
> }
> }
> + else if (tparms)
> + OB_PUTC ('H');
> else
> ! OB_PUTC ('F');
>
> if (tparms)
> {
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
@ 1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 11:25 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 14:40 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 11:23 ` Chip Salzenberg
1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 1997-10-02 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Buck; +Cc: egcs
>>>>> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
> Jason writes:
>> Arrgh. This is a bug in the mangling code; that should be __F1Z, not
>> __g1Z. However, I don't understand why it's failing; it seems to be a
>> miscompilation of build_decl_overload_real. Does this patch fix
>> the problem?
> No, in fact, with this patch, *all* the libstdc++ tests fail to compile.
Arrgh again. That patch seems to work for other folks. Did you rebuild
all the library code, including libgcc? If so, could you possibly
investigate why that section of build_decl_overload_real is doing the wrong
thing? It seems like an awfully simple operation to me. I don't know why
it's breaking all of a sudden.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
@ 1997-10-02 11:25 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 14:40 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-02 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: egcs team
> > No, in fact, with this patch, *all* the libstdc++ tests fail to compile.
>
> Arrgh again. That patch seems to work for other folks. Did you rebuild
> all the library code, including libgcc?
No, I didn't (silly me, just re-ran the tests). I'll try blowing
everything away first and build again.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 11:25 ` Joe Buck
@ 1997-10-02 14:40 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 15:02 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-02 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: jbuck, egcs
I wrote:
> > No, in fact, with this patch, *all* the libstdc++ tests fail to compile.
Jason writes:
> Arrgh again. That patch seems to work for other folks. Did you rebuild
> all the library code, including libgcc?
Joy. After blowing everything away and rebuilding, Jason's patch fixes
the libstdc++ tests (they all pass again).
I'm re-running the g++ tests now to see if anything changes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 14:40 ` Joe Buck
@ 1997-10-02 15:02 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-02 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jason; +Cc: egcs team
I wrote:
[ after Jason's patch to method.c: ]
> I'm re-running the g++ tests now to see if anything changes.
Yep, a definite improvement. Before Jason's patch, on sun-solaris I got
FAIL: g++.brendan/arm3.C previous declaration (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.brendan/arm3.C previously declared (test for errors, line 9)
FAIL: g++.brendan/template9.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.jason/template38.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.law/arg7.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.law/missed-error2.C extern (test for errors, line 20)
After the patch, I get
FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.law/missed-error2.C extern (test for errors, line 20)
Very impressive indeed!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
@ 1997-10-02 11:23 ` Chip Salzenberg
1997-10-02 13:23 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chip Salzenberg @ 1997-10-02 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
I'm using a Linux system with glibc 2.0.4. Despite Ulrich's patches
that are a part of egcs-970929, a simple program to write to cout
dumps core. I really don't know what to do next.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@pobox.com>
"He's Mr. Big of 'Big And Tall' fame." // MST3K
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 11:23 ` Chip Salzenberg
@ 1997-10-02 13:23 ` H.J. Lu
1997-10-02 13:28 ` Chip Salzenberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 1997-10-02 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: chip; +Cc: egcs
>
> I'm using a Linux system with glibc 2.0.4. Despite Ulrich's patches
> that are a part of egcs-970929, a simple program to write to cout
> dumps core. I really don't know what to do next.
You need glibc 2.0.5c and a patch for linuxthreads enclosed here.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
--- linuxthreads/sysdeps/pthread/libc-lock.h.orig Thu Oct 2 13:20:38 1997
+++ linuxthreads/sysdeps/pthread/libc-lock.h Thu Oct 2 13:22:24 1997
@@ -166,6 +166,11 @@
/* We need portable names for some functions. E.g., when they are
used as argument to __libc_cleanup_region_start. */
# define __libc_mutex_unlock __pthread_mutex_unlock
+#else
+# ifdef __ELF__
+# pragma weak _pthread_cleanup_push_defer
+# pragma weak _pthread_cleanup_pop_restore
+# endif
#endif
#endif /* bits/libc-lock.h */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 13:23 ` H.J. Lu
@ 1997-10-02 13:28 ` Chip Salzenberg
1997-10-02 13:30 ` H.J. Lu
1997-10-02 13:40 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chip Salzenberg @ 1997-10-02 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: chip, egcs
According to H.J. Lu:
> > I'm using a Linux system with glibc 2.0.4. Despite Ulrich's patches
> > that are a part of egcs-970929, a simple program to write to cout
> > dumps core. I really don't know what to do next.
>
> You need glibc 2.0.5c and a patch for linuxthreads enclosed here.
Is 2.0.4 beyond help? Debian doesn't have a 2.0.5 package yet, and
when I looked at compiling 2.0.5c it seemed likely that I would get
something wrong.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@pobox.com>
"He's Mr. Big of 'Big And Tall' fame." // MST3K
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 13:28 ` Chip Salzenberg
@ 1997-10-02 13:30 ` H.J. Lu
1997-10-02 13:40 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 1997-10-02 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: chip; +Cc: egcs
>
> According to H.J. Lu:
> > > I'm using a Linux system with glibc 2.0.4. Despite Ulrich's patches
> > > that are a part of egcs-970929, a simple program to write to cout
> > > dumps core. I really don't know what to do next.
> >
> > You need glibc 2.0.5c and a patch for linuxthreads enclosed here.
>
> Is 2.0.4 beyond help? Debian doesn't have a 2.0.5 package yet, and
> when I looked at compiling 2.0.5c it seemed likely that I would get
> something wrong.
libio in egcs use thunks. You need 2.0.5c for that.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 13:28 ` Chip Salzenberg
1997-10-02 13:30 ` H.J. Lu
@ 1997-10-02 13:40 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 13:49 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1997-10-02 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: chip; +Cc: hjl, egcs
> According to H.J. Lu:
> > > I'm using a Linux system with glibc 2.0.4. Despite Ulrich's patches
> > > that are a part of egcs-970929, a simple program to write to cout
> > > dumps core. I really don't know what to do next.
> >
> > You need glibc 2.0.5c and a patch for linuxthreads enclosed here.
>
> Is 2.0.4 beyond help? Debian doesn't have a 2.0.5 package yet, and
> when I looked at compiling 2.0.5c it seemed likely that I would get
> something wrong.
I want to get out of the mode where I have to continually replace my Linux
C libraries to use a new compiler. I don't have to do that on any other
platform. What's worse, the new libraries often break existing
applications, ones I may not have the source for (e.g. Netscape), and
pointing the finger at the other app developer does no good. Why should
this be acceptable for Linux? It basically says that only wizards may
use new compilers, or else all Linux users must wait for a wizard, such
as HJ Lu, to build binaries for everyone. This makes Linux feel, um,
"proprietary". As Mike Tiemann once said, free software is supposed to
be no-hassle software.
It would be better if the new compiler can adapt to the existing
libraries, possibly by adding more autoconf tests to find problem areas.
When egcs is released, it should be possible for Linux users who have the
then-current Red Hat or Debian distribution to build a working egcs
without upgrading their C library.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251)
1997-10-02 13:40 ` Joe Buck
@ 1997-10-02 13:49 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 1997-10-02 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Buck; +Cc: egcs
> I want to get out of the mode where I have to continually replace my Linux
> C libraries to use a new compiler. I don't have to do that on any other
That is not entirely true. I used to have a patch to support it.
> platform. What's worse, the new libraries often break existing
> applications, ones I may not have the source for (e.g. Netscape), and
It shouldn't break Netscape unless it is a bug in Netscape itself.
The new libc may expose the bug. As far as I know, the new Netscape
works ok.
> pointing the finger at the other app developer does no good. Why should
> this be acceptable for Linux? It basically says that only wizards may
> use new compilers, or else all Linux users must wait for a wizard, such
> as HJ Lu, to build binaries for everyone. This makes Linux feel, um,
> "proprietary". As Mike Tiemann once said, free software is supposed to
> be no-hassle software.
The problem is not with gcc. It is libio that causes the problem.
The solution has been there for a long time. But no one cared
enough to make the official libg++ to work with linux out of box.
Now Ulrich is working on libg++. Things will be different.
>
> It would be better if the new compiler can adapt to the existing
> libraries, possibly by adding more autoconf tests to find problem areas.
>
> When egcs is released, it should be possible for Linux users who have the
> then-current Red Hat or Debian distribution to build a working egcs
> without upgrading their C library.
>
The new C libraries usually fix some bugs. It makes senses to
upgrade libc first.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-10-02 15:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1997-10-01 15:11 970929 test results: libstdc++ test failures! (sparc-solaris251) Joe Buck
[not found] <199710012211.PAA28962.cygnus.egcs@atrus.synopsys.com>
1997-10-01 18:18 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 1:59 ` Torbjorn Lindgren
1997-10-02 10:46 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 11:08 ` Jason Merrill
1997-10-02 11:25 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 14:40 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 15:02 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 11:23 ` Chip Salzenberg
1997-10-02 13:23 ` H.J. Lu
1997-10-02 13:28 ` Chip Salzenberg
1997-10-02 13:30 ` H.J. Lu
1997-10-02 13:40 ` Joe Buck
1997-10-02 13:49 ` H.J. Lu
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).