[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC||law at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Should be fixed on the trunk now.
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Wed Feb 7 10:49:53 2018 New Revision: 257445 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257445=gcc=rev Log: Use -fcf-protection=return in cet-intrin-4.c Since -fcf-protection requires both -mshstk and -mibt, use -fcf-protection=return with -mshstk in cet-intrin-4.c. PR target/84243 * gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c (dg-options): Use -fcf-protection=return. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #10 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8) > > --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- > [...] > >> Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. > >> The > >> two > >> failures are completely different, probably belong into a different PR. > > > > Is the ICE you see the same as specified in Comment 2? If yes then this is > > covered by 84248. Patch for this issue has been posted. > > It is indeed. Sorry for overlooking this: to many failures cooking at > once ;-) > > With my patch above, this leaves us with the cet-intrin-4.c failure: > just replace -mshstk with -mcet? No. Your patch should not have effect on cet-intrin-[34].c fails. Fail in these tests has different reason (PR 84248).
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Tue Feb 6 23:31:09 2018 New Revision: 257432 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257432=gcc=rev Log: Don't pass x86-only options on non-x86 targets in c-c++-common/fcf-protection-[67].c (PR testsuite/84243) PR testsuite/84243 * c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c: Only pass -mshstk on x86 targets. * c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c: Likewise for -mibt. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- [...] >> Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. The >> two >> failures are completely different, probably belong into a different PR. > > Is the ICE you see the same as specified in Comment 2? If yes then this is > covered by 84248. Patch for this issue has been posted. It is indeed. Sorry for overlooking this: to many failures cooking at once ;-) With my patch above, this leaves us with the cet-intrin-4.c failure: just replace -mshstk with -mcet? Thanks. Rainer
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #6) > Patch for the fcf-protection-[67].c failures posted: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00285.html > > Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. The > two > failures are completely different, probably belong into a different PR. Is the ICE you see the same as specified in Comment 2? If yes then this is covered by 84248. Patch for this issue has been posted.
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86-64-none-linux-gnu, |x86-64-*-*, i?86-*-*, |aarch64-none-linux-gnu |aarch64-none-linux-gnu Target Milestone|--- |8.0 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth --- Patch for the fcf-protection-[67].c failures posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00285.html Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. The two failures are completely different, probably belong into a different PR.
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- I'm seeing the c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c and c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c on sparc-sun-solaris2.11, too: +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++11 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++14 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++98 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-mshstk' +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++11 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++14 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++98 (test for errors, line ) +FAIL: c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: xg++: error: unrecognized command line option '-mibt' ISTM that -mshstk and -mibt should only be passed on x86 targets, then you get the expected error. About to test a patch along those lines. Rainer
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed||2018-02-06 Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Reopened.
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Dup. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 84248 ***
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh --- gcc -v: Configured with: .../gcc/configure --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer --prefix=.../build/install/ FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3.c (internal compiler error) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: .../build/gcc/include/pmmintrin.h:35:9: internal compiler error: in ix86_option_override_internal, at config/i386/i386.c:4952 0xfa1687 ix86_option_override_internal .../gcc/config/i386/i386.c:4952 0xfaf246 ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree(tree_node*, gcc_options*, gcc_options*) .../gcc/config/i386/i386.c:5656 0x76b7cb ix86_pragma_target_parse .../gcc/config/i386/i386-c.c:539 0x743cd3 handle_pragma_target .../gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c:907 0x6c2349 c_parser_pragma .../gcc/c/c-parser.c:11122 0x6e600d c_parser_external_declaration .../gcc/c/c-parser.c:1624 0x6e6971 c_parser_translation_unit .../gcc/c/c-parser.c:1524 0x6e6971 c_parse_file() .../gcc/c/c-parser.c:18410 0x7417f5 c_common_parse_file() .../gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1132 FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: cc1: error: '-fcf-protection=full' requires Intel CET support. Use -mcet or both of -mibt and -mshstk options to enable CET
[Bug testsuite/84243] [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at r257414
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 --- Comment #1 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com --- Hi, I do not have 'none-linux' platform at hand. Could you please show the output for the failing tests? Thanks, Igor > -Original Message- > From: jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:58 PM > To: itsim...@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: [Bug testsuite/84243] New: [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin- > 4.c at r257414 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243 > > Bug ID: 84243 >Summary: [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at > r257414 >Product: gcc >Version: 8.0 > Status: UNCONFIRMED > Severity: normal > Priority: P3 > Component: testsuite > Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org > Reporter: jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org > CC: itsimbal at gcc dot gnu.org > Target Milestone: --- > Target: x86-64-none-linux-gnu, aarch64-none-linux-gnu > > Hi, our bisect robot spotted a failure in gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3.c, > gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c, after revision r257414 on > x86-64-none-linux-gnu, and c-c++-common/fcf-protection-6.c and > c-c++-common/fcf-protection-7.c on aarch64-none-linux.gnu. Would you > mind > taking a look? > > Your new tests will always FAIL on non-x86 targets (for example > aarch64-none-linux-gnu). Is dg-error really the right directive, that is a > guaranteed FAIL, I would expect a skip. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
