On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 11:37 +0100, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
> While on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, the second diagram shows the type
> written
> as 'int', as expected, on a 16 and 32 bit newlib based toolchain, it
> is
> being output as int32_t . And all the formatting is also a bit
> different, probably due to the change in how the int32_t is
> displayed.
Sorry about over-specifying the tests output.
>
> What do other people see on toolchains where the regression tests
> actually have I/O functionality?
FWIW on my x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="-v -v --target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
analyzer.exp=out-of-bounds-diagram-11.c"
I see this output for the 2nd test:
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ write of '(int) 42' │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
│ │
│ │
v v
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐┌──────────────────┐
│ buffer allocated on stack at (1) ││after valid range │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘└──────────────────┘
├────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┤├────────┬─────────┤
│ │
╭────────────────┴───────────────╮ ╭─────────┴────────╮
│capacity: '(size * 4) + 3' bytes│ │overflow of 1 byte│
╰────────────────────────────────╯ ╰──────────────────╯
Does it help to hack this change into prune.exp:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
index d00d37f015f7..f467d1a97bc6 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ proc prune_gcc_output { text } {
# Many tests that use visibility will still pass on platforms that don't
support it.
regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*lto1: warning: visibility attribute not
supported in this configuration; ignored\[^\n\]*" $text "" text
- #send_user "After:$text\n"
+ send_user "After:$text\n"
return $text
}
>
> Would it make sense to handle this with one multi-line pattern for
> newlib based toolchains, ending with
> { dg-end-multiline-output "" { target *-*-elf } } */
> and one for glibc based toolchain, ending in
> { dg-end-multiline-output "" { target !*-*-elf } } */
> ?
Presumably the only difference is in the top-right hand box of the
diagram, whereas my objective for those tests was more about the lower
part of the diagram - I wanted to verify how we handle symbolic buffer
sizes (e.g. (size * 4) + 3, and other run-time-computer sizes).
It's rather awkward to test the diagrams with DejaGnu, alas.
Would it might make sense to split out that file into three separate
tests -11a, -11b, and -11c, and be more aggressive about only running
the 2nd test on targets that we know generate "int" in the top-right
box?
>
> I have no idea what toolchains with different libraries (and hence
> header files) would see.
>
Sorry again about this
Dave
