https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122172
--- Comment #29 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #28) > (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #27) > > There were still (22-11=)11 regressions compared to r16-3809 for cris-elf at > > r16-4373-g385984f555 (still at r16-4386-g5b57da59c12e69). I'll open a > > separate PR for: > > g++.sum g++-dg-lto-devirt-2-01.exe > > g++.sum g++.dg/ipa/devirt-2.C > > but these 9 seem attributable to the same r16-3810 commit: > > libstdc++.sum 24_iterators/reverse_iterator/100639.cc > > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/1.cc > > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/2.cc > > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/3.cc > > libstdc++.sum 29_atomics/atomic_ref/requirements.cc > > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/93267.cc > > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/96042.cc > > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/size.cc > > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/subrange/96042.cc > > All but one are compilation or linking errors for a missing funlockfile > > function (some of the errors are at compilation stage, others for linking > > state). > > Those are all new in r16-4350-g8bd872f1ea7414 so unrelated to the > _Atomic_word stuff. Responding to that statement at face value (sp?): sorry, but that's not correct. I re-checked my double-checking. But no need to take my word for it; the first one, 24_iterators/reverse_iterator/100639.cc for example, you can see that it has a commit-date in 2020 (no, not author-date; I've learned). The last one, std/ranges/subrange/96042.cc, from 2000. But, I realized all by myself that you could mean that r16-4350 changed the reason for the failure. Looking at the log entries for the first and the last failure, that seems to be it: r16-4350 needs to handle newlib targets. > > The atomic one is > > /gccobj/cris-elf/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h:1555: \ > > error: static assertion failed: atomic operations on volatile T must be > > lock-free > > That's Bug 122267 Thanks, that does look similar. A different test though. > I think they're two new regressions from two separate commits, unrelated to > this one. I guess I'll go bother the author of those commits instead. :) (I'll reference this PR though.)
