From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18619 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2002 19:07:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18612 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2002 19:07:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e34.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.132) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 30 Dec 2002 19:07:20 -0000 Received: from westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.194.24]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBUJ74Wx037288; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:07:04 -0500 Received: from unknown.host (lig32-224-94-67.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.224.94.67]) by westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gBUJ71dJ024038; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:07:02 -0700 Received: (from janis@localhost) by unknown.host (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA30900; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:09:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:02:00 -0000 From: Janis Johnson To: "R. Kelley Cook" Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Analysis of g++.dg/bprob/g++-bprob-1.C multilib failures Message-ID: <20021230110936.A30890@us.ibm.com> References: <200212271716.MAA29305@caip.rutgers.edu> <3E1061F0.8030407@comerica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3E1061F0.8030407@comerica.com>; from robert_k_cook@comerica.com on Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 10:10:40AM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01595.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 10:10:40AM -0500, R. Kelley Cook wrote: > >Though it doesn't say *which* file g++ can't find, I'm suspecting that > >the profiling intermediate files are removed in the first multilib > >pass cleanup phase and not re-generated in the second and later > >multilib passes. > > > >Since I don't really understand the bprob tests, I tried checking to > >see why the g77 and gcc bprob tests work with multilibs and the g++ > >ones don't. The only real difference I can see between on one hand > >g77.dg/bprob/bprob.exp & gcc.misc-tests/bprob.exp versus > >g++.dg/bprob/bprob.exp is that the working languages have this extra > >line > > Kaveh, > > I think I might know why. > > I have a long open PR other/6480 regarding behavior that was very similar. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=6480 > > Basically, the g++ and gcc testsuites parse their additionaloptions in > different order. And I am guessing that specifying a multilib is an > additional option > > g++ does it the correct way, IMO. Specifically, that an individual test > can override any global options. > > I provided a one line patch with the PR, try it. If it works great. > More likely, if both gcc and g++ now exhibit the queerness that you > noticed then you at least also have your answer: lib/profopt.exp (which > is called by the bprob expect files) then already takes into account the > backwards syntax of gcc.exp and attempted to correct it ahead of time. > > It would be nice if this patch was reviewed. The various testsuites do > behave differently with --tool-opts specified. The problem Kaveh ran into was different. Your patch makes sense to me but I haven't yet tried it. Janis