On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:42 AM Thomas De Schampheleire
<patrickdeping...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> El jue., 16 may. 2019 a las 14:41, Richard Biener
> (<richard.guent...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:20 AM Thomas De Schampheleire
> > <patrickdeping...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de_schamphele...@nokia.com>
> > >
> > > In addition to making -feliminate-unused-debug-symbols work for the DWARF
> > > format (see [1]), make this option the default. This behavior was the case
> > > before, e.g. under gcc 4.9.x.
> > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=269925
> >
> > I have tested this patch and it causes a few FAILs, eventually hinting
> > at implementation issues:
> >
> > === g++ tests ===
> >
> >
> > Running target unix
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs -O2 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs -O3 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs+ -O2 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs+ -O3 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs+3 -O2 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs+3 -O3 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs3 -O2 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/enum-2.C -gstabs3 -O3 scan-assembler JTI_MAX
> >
> > maybe expected (stabs....)
> >
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-any.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > field_head_or
> > dy_defn_fld_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-any.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > field_head_or
> > dy_defn_ptr_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-any.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > field_head_or
> > dy_defn_ref_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-any.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > field_head_or
> > dy_defn_var_head_fld.*DW_AT_name
> > ... more ...
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_
> > head_ordy_defn_var_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_
> > head_tmpl_defn_var_head<int>.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++17 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_
> > head_ordy_defn_var_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++17 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_
> > head_tmpl_defn_var_head<int>.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++98 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_
> > head_ordy_defn_var_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-baseonly.C -std=gnu++98
> > scan-assembler gstruct_head_tmpl_defn_var_head<int>.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-none.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_head_ordy_defn_var_head.*DW_AT_name
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/fesd-none.C -std=gnu++14 scan-assembler
> > gstruct_head_tmpl_defn_var_head<int>.*DW_AT_name
> > ... more fesd-* testcases FAIL ...
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline-var-1.C -std=gnu++17
> > scan-assembler-times DW_AT_[^\\n\\r]*linkage_name 7
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline-var-1.C -std=gnu++17
> > scan-assembler-times DW_AT_specification 6
> > FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline-var-1.C -std=gnu++17
> > scan-assembler-times 0x3[^\\n\\r]* DW_AT_inline 6
> >
> > C variants of the fesd-* testcases also FAIL. Those testcases are
> > huge, a quick look didn't
> > reveal whether those are expected FAILs or not.
>
>
> I tried reproducing these failures, using 'make bootstrap && make
> check', but I see many many test failures:
>
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 144268
> # of unexpected failures 113
> # of unexpected successes 28
> # of expected failures 593
> # of unresolved testcases 2
> # of unsupported tests 2279
>
> === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 134673
> # of unexpected failures 137
> # of expected failures 527
> # of unsupported tests 5944
>
> /home/tdescham/repo/contrib/gcc/host-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc
> version 10.0.0 20190516 (experimental) (GCC)
>
>
> Is it expected that 'master' (gcc 10) has such failures? Should I test
> on another branch, if so which?
The guality ones are probably the most "disturbing", but yes, there
are quite a number of FAILs, my last result shows
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 144773
# of unexpected failures 102
# of unexpected successes 28
# of expected failures 602
# of unresolved testcases 2
# of unsupported tests 2297
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 134956
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 527
# of unsupported tests 5946
so esp. the C suite has quite a lot (guality, that is...)
> And is there a way to run only specific tests, e.g. the ones that you
> pointed out?
Yes, from inside gcc/ (in the build tree) do
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="debug.exp=enum-2.C"
to run a single testcase. Omit the '=enum-2.C' to run all tests
where debug.exp resides. For the dwarf testcases use
dwarf2.exp in place of debug.exp. For the C testcases
use the check-gcc make target.
Richard.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
