Re: RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
On 01/07/2016 05:15 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: Hi Jeff, The attached patch adds the test derived from the BZ. There is one small problem - I could not find a way to stop the additional source file from being compiled as a test on its own. I think for C++ code it's usually worked around by naming the additional-source file with ".cc" rather than .C. Can you give that a quick whirl and see if that avoids having the additional file used as a a test on its own? Thanks - that worked. :-) Revised test attached. OK to apply ? Yes. jeff
Re: RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
Hi Jeff,
The attached patch adds the test derived from the BZ. There is one
small problem - I could not find a way to stop the additional source
file from being compiled as a test on its own.
I think for C++ code it's usually worked around by naming the
additional-source file with ".cc" rather than .C. Can you give that a
quick whirl and see if that avoids having the additional file used as a
a test on its own?
Thanks - that worked. :-)
Revised test attached. OK to apply ?
Cheers
Nick
--- /dev/null 2016-01-07 09:30:14.144966933 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655.C 2016-01-07 12:13:15.757187619 +
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-sources "pr66655_1.cc" } */
+
+#include "pr66655.h"
+
+extern "C" void abort (void);
+
+#define COOKIE 0xabcd0123
+
+int
+g (void)
+{
+ return COOKIE;
+}
+
+extern int f (void);
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ S::set(0);
+ if (f () != COOKIE)
+abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
--- /dev/null 2016-01-07 09:30:14.144966933 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655_1.cc 2016-01-07 12:04:30.586623022 +
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+#include "pr66655.h"
+
+extern int g (void);
+
+int S::i;
+
+int
+f (void)
+{
+ int ret = g ();
+
+ S::set (ret);
+ return ret;
+}
--- /dev/null 2016-01-07 09:30:14.144966933 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655.h 2016-01-05 10:41:45.629561622 +
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+struct S
+{
+ static int i;
+ static void set (int ii) { i = -ii; }
+};
Re: RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
On 01/05/2016 04:03 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: Hi Jeff, You probably know the capabilities of COFF/PE better than I, so the patch itself is fine. Thanks - committed. Is there any way that test can be shoved into our dejagnu testing harness? I think we've got support somewhere for tests which require multiple input files. dg-additional-sources is the command that you are thinking about. That's it! The attached patch adds the test derived from the BZ. There is one small problem - I could not find a way to stop the additional source file from being compiled as a test on its own. When I investigated however it seems that is a common problem for all tests that use additional source files, so I do not think that it is a big issue. I think for C++ code it's usually worked around by naming the additional-source file with ".cc" rather than .C. Can you give that a quick whirl and see if that avoids having the additional file used as a a test on its own? Thanks, jeff
Re: RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
Hi Jeff,
You probably know the capabilities of COFF/PE better than I, so the
patch itself is fine.
Thanks - committed.
Is there any way that test can be shoved into our dejagnu testing
harness? I think we've got support somewhere for tests which require
multiple input files.
dg-additional-sources is the command that you are thinking about.
The attached patch adds the test derived from the BZ. There is one
small problem - I could not find a way to stop the additional source
file from being compiled as a test on its own. When I investigated
however it seems that is a common problem for all tests that use
additional source files, so I do not think that it is a big issue.
Tested with no regressions on an x86_64-pc-linux-gnu toolchain.
OK to apply ?
Cheers
Nick
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2016-01-05 Nick Clifton
PR target/66655
* g++.dg/pr66655.C: New test.
* g++.dg/pr66655_1.C: Additional source file for the test.
* g++.dg/pr66655.h: Header file for the test.
--- /dev/null 2016-01-05 08:31:00.212966083 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655.C 2016-01-05 10:42:01.769654305 +
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-sources "pr66655_1.C" } */
+
+#include "pr66655.h"
+
+extern "C" void abort (void);
+
+#define COOKIE 0xabcd0123
+
+int
+g (void)
+{
+ return COOKIE;
+}
+
+extern int f (void);
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ S::set(0);
+ if (f () != COOKIE)
+abort ();
+ return 0;
+}
--- /dev/null 2016-01-05 08:31:00.212966083 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655_1.C 2016-01-05 10:41:23.266433205 +
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+#include "pr66655.h"
+
+extern int g (void);
+
+int S::i;
+
+int
+f (void)
+{
+ int ret = g ();
+
+ S::set (ret);
+ return ret;
+}
--- /dev/null 2016-01-05 08:31:00.212966083 +
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr66655.h 2016-01-05 10:41:45.629561622 +
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+struct S
+{
+ static int i;
+ static void set (int ii) { i = -ii; }
+};
Re: RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
On 12/22/2015 03:17 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: Hi Guys, The patch below is a proposed fix for PR 66655. The issue I believe is not that the ming32 definition of bind_local_p is wrong, but rather that G++ thinks that it cannot make the decl weak even though bind_local_p says that it should. The answer is to define MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY using the COFF/PE weak symbol support now available in gas and the linker. Doing this allows the test to pass. OK to apply ? Cheers Nick gcc/ChangeLog 2015-12-22 Nick Clifton PR target/66655 * config/i386/cygming.h (MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY): Use weak symbol support, if available. You probably know the capabilities of COFF/PE better than I, so the patch itself is fine. Is there any way that test can be shoved into our dejagnu testing harness? I think we've got support somewhere for tests which require multiple input files. Jeff
RFA: PR 66655: Use COFF/PE weak symbols
Hi Guys,
The patch below is a proposed fix for PR 66655. The issue I believe
is not that the ming32 definition of bind_local_p is wrong, but rather
that G++ thinks that it cannot make the decl weak even though
bind_local_p says that it should. The answer is to define
MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY using the COFF/PE weak symbol support now available
in gas and the linker. Doing this allows the test to pass.
OK to apply ?
Cheers
Nick
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-12-22 Nick Clifton
PR target/66655
* config/i386/cygming.h (MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY): Use weak symbol
support, if available.
Index: config/i386/cygming.h
===
--- config/i386/cygming.h (revision 231898)
+++ config/i386/cygming.h (working copy)
@@ -432,6 +432,10 @@
fputc ('\n', (FILE)); \
} \
while (0)
+
+/* Make use of the weak support for ONE_ONLY decls. */
+#undef MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY
+#define MAKE_DECL_ONE_ONLY(DECL) (DECL_WEAK (DECL) = 1)
#endif /* HAVE_GAS_WEAK */
/* FIXME: SUPPORTS_WEAK && TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS is true,
