[Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Senthil Kumar Selvaraj]

All,

  gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c has a call to getpid, and this causes
  a linker error on the AVR (embedded) target. Is the call intentional,
  and if yes, how should this be fixed for targets that don't support an
  OS?

Regards
Senthil

Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Senthil Kumar Selvaraj]

This is on trunk - I was under the impression that it is always trunk,
unless otherwise stated?

getpid doesn't really make sense for bare metal targets, I would think?

Regards
Senthil

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:04:48PM +0000, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Senthil,
> Please do let us know the gcc version ,I couldn't locate the file pr58419.c  in  the GCC 4.8.1 source .
>  
> To go with the below problem ,you can attributed the getpid() function as weak (http://www.embedded-bits.co.uk/2008/gcc-weak-symbols/).
> 
> ~Umesh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> Sent: 27 January 2014 15:18
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c
> 
> All,
> 
>   gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c has a call to getpid, and this causes
>   a linker error on the AVR (embedded) target. Is the call intentional,
>   and if yes, how should this be fixed for targets that don't support an
>   OS?
> 
> Regards
> Senthil

Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Janis Johnson]

On 01/27/2014 10:51 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
> This is on trunk - I was under the impression that it is always trunk,
> unless otherwise stated?
> 
> getpid doesn't really make sense for bare metal targets, I would think?
> 
> Regards
> Senthil
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:04:48PM +0000, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
>> Senthil,
>> Please do let us know the gcc version ,I couldn't locate the file pr58419.c  in  the GCC 4.8.1 source .
>>  
>> To go with the below problem ,you can attributed the getpid() function as weak (http://www.embedded-bits.co.uk/2008/gcc-weak-symbols/).
>>
>> ~Umesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
>> Sent: 27 January 2014 15:18
>> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c
>>
>> All,
>>
>>   gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c has a call to getpid, and this causes
>>   a linker error on the AVR (embedded) target. Is the call intentional,
>>   and if yes, how should this be fixed for targets that don't support an
>>   OS?
>>
>> Regards
>> Senthil
> 
> 

The testcase in the PR had a call to printf.  The modified test doesn't call
printf, and doesn't declare getpid.  I assume that getpid is called simply
to have an external call, but there must be something that could be used
instead that is available for any target.

Jeff, you added this test, would you please take a look at it?

Janis 

Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Jeff Law]

On 01/28/14 11:14, Janis Johnson wrote:
> The testcase in the PR had a call to printf.  The modified test doesn't call
> printf, and doesn't declare getpid.  I assume that getpid is called simply
> to have an external call, but there must be something that could be used
> instead that is available for any target.
>
> Jeff, you added this test, would you please take a look at it?
It was a testcase from Zhendong that was modified to fit within our 
testing framework.

I think we could replace the call to getpid with a call to a function 
which has a noinline attribute.

Jeff

Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Jeff Law]

On 04/25/14 03:16, Dhakshinamoorthy, Soundararajan wrote:
> 2014-04-25  Soundararajan Dhakshinamoorthy<sounderarajan.d@atmel.com>
>
> 	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c: Adjust the test to work with bare metal targets. The
>             test code references to functions that is not implemented for the avr target (getpid()).
THanks.  I tweaked the ChangeLog slightly and installed your patch.

Jeff

RE: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

[Dhakshinamoorthy, Soundararajan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1164 bytes --]

Hi, 

I have attached a patch based on the recommendation. Can you please review and apply, if it looks ok ?. I don't have commit access.


gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

2014-04-25  Soundararajan Dhakshinamoorthy  <sounderarajan.d@atmel.com>

	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c: Adjust the test to work with bare metal targets. The 
           test code references to functions that is not implemented for the avr target (getpid()).

Thanks,
Soundararajan

________________________________________
From: Jeff Law [law@redhat.com]
Sent: 23 April 2014 21:59:52
To: Dhakshinamoorthy, Soundararajan; gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Testsuite] getpid in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c

On 04/23/14 05:50, Dhakshinamoorthy, Soundararajan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The test mentioned in the link had a call to getpid which causes the test to fail for bare metal targets. Is it ok to replace it with
> printf("\0") ?
>
> which seems to be the first version of the test.
You want to avoid the printf.  Instead I think a dummy function that is
marked as noinline should be sufficient -- I just haven't had the time
to verify that myself.

Jeff


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: pr58419.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name="pr58419.patch", Size: 540 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c
index 69cc040..78bf437 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-int printf(const char *, ...);
+__attribute__((__noinline__))
+void
+dummy ()
+{
+  asm volatile("");
+}
 
 int a, g, i, k, *p;
 signed char b;
@@ -31,6 +36,6 @@ main ()
       *l = a;
       g = foo (*m = k && *d, 1 > i) || bar (); 
     }
-  getpid();
+  dummy();
   return 0;
 }