Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Sep 3, 2024, at 11:44 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Here's an updated and refreshed version that gets trunk built with > --disable-hosted-libstdcxx on x86_64-linux-gnu to not get any spurious > fails during in-tree testing. Also bootstrapped on hosted > x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install? Ok.
Re: [PATCH v2] testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Sep 3, 2024, at 11:44 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Nov 8, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: >>> that, otherwise, I'll approve this version. >>> >>> FWIW, this version is not usable as is. Something went wrong > >> Updates and fixes to the original plan are fine. > >> I'm still planning on letting you decide based upon input from everyone. :-) > > Here's an updated and refreshed version that gets trunk built with > --disable-hosted-libstdcxx on x86_64-linux-gnu to not get any spurious > fails during in-tree testing. Also bootstrapped on hosted > x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install? Can I ask a global person and/or Jason to weigh in? The little details are fine, but I like consensus on the larger plan, since this ripples so far across the testsuite. I suppose this is just a knock on of the existence of the --disable-hosted-libstdcxx flag. > Several C++ tests fail with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx, whether > because stdc++exp gets linked in despite not being built, because > standard headers are included but that are unavailable in this mode, > or because headers are (mistakenly?) expected to introduce > declarations such as for abort, malloc, etc, but in this mode they > don't. > > This patch introduces an effective target for GCC test, equivalent to > one that's available in the libstdc++-v3 testsuite, and arranges for > all such tests to be skipped when libstdc++-v3 is not hosted. > > > Co-Authored-By: Olivier Hainque > > for gcc/ChangeLog > > * doc/sourcebuild.texi (hostedlib): New effective target. > > for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_hostedlib): > New. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-access1.C: Skip if !hostedlib > because of libstdc++exp. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume4.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-config1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-constexpr1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-deduced2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-externC.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-friend1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-multiline1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-nested-class2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre2a2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts10.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts18.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts19.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts24.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts25.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts4.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts5.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts6.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts7.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts9.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/pr110159.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/pr115434.C: Likewise. Adjust line numbers. > * c-c++-common/pr36513-2.c: Skip if !hostedlib because of > unavailable headers. > * c-c++-common/analyzer/pr93290.c: Likewise. > * g++.dg/analyzer/pr93212.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/analyzer/vfunc-2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/cdce3.C: Likewise. Adjust line numbers. > * g++.dg/concepts/expression.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/concepts/fn3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/concepts/fn9.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/concepts/generic-fn.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-ignore2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post7.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre10.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre4.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre5.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre7.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre9.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl4.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl6.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl7.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec2.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec3.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts14.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts15.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts16.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/contracts/contracts17.C: Likewise. > * g++
[PATCH v2] testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Nov 9, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 8, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: >> >>> that, otherwise, I'll approve this version. >> >> FWIW, this version is not usable as is. Something went wrong > Updates and fixes to the original plan are fine. > I'm still planning on letting you decide based upon input from everyone. :-) Here's an updated and refreshed version that gets trunk built with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx on x86_64-linux-gnu to not get any spurious fails during in-tree testing. Also bootstrapped on hosted x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install? Several C++ tests fail with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx, whether because stdc++exp gets linked in despite not being built, because standard headers are included but that are unavailable in this mode, or because headers are (mistakenly?) expected to introduce declarations such as for abort, malloc, etc, but in this mode they don't. This patch introduces an effective target for GCC test, equivalent to one that's available in the libstdc++-v3 testsuite, and arranges for all such tests to be skipped when libstdc++-v3 is not hosted. Co-Authored-By: Olivier Hainque for gcc/ChangeLog * doc/sourcebuild.texi (hostedlib): New effective target. for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_hostedlib): New. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-access1.C: Skip if !hostedlib because of libstdc++exp. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume4.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-config1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-constexpr1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-deduced2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-externC.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-friend1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-multiline1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-nested-class2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre2a2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts10.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts18.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts19.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts24.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts25.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts4.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts5.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts6.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts7.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts9.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/pr110159.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/pr115434.C: Likewise. Adjust line numbers. * c-c++-common/pr36513-2.c: Skip if !hostedlib because of unavailable headers. * c-c++-common/analyzer/pr93290.c: Likewise. * g++.dg/analyzer/pr93212.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/analyzer/vfunc-2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cdce3.C: Likewise. Adjust line numbers. * g++.dg/concepts/expression.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/concepts/fn3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/concepts/fn9.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/concepts/generic-fn.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-assume2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-ignore2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-post7.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre10.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre4.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre5.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre7.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-pre9.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl4.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl6.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-redecl7.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts-tmpl-spec3.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts14.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts15.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts16.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts17.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts22.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/contracts/contracts35.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr100611.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr100772-b.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr101133.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr101367.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr101976.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/coroutines/pr102454.C: Lik
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Nov 8, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > >> that, otherwise, I'll approve this version. > > FWIW, this version is not usable as is. Something went wrong in my > testing, and several regressions only visible in hosted mode made to the > version I posted, that adds some missing end-of-comment markers for the > added dg directives, and moving the new dg directive to the end so as to > not disturb line numbers. I've got a fully fixed and properly tested > version, but since it's about as big as the original patch, I'll only > post it upon request. Updates and fixes to the original plan are fine. I'm still planning on letting you decide based upon input from everyone. :-)
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > that, otherwise, I'll approve this version. FWIW, this version is not usable as is. Something went wrong in my testing, and several regressions only visible in hosted mode made to the version I posted, that adds some missing end-of-comment markers for the added dg directives, and moving the new dg directive to the end so as to not disturb line numbers. I've got a fully fixed and properly tested version, but since it's about as big as the original patch, I'll only post it upon request. (in case anyone's interested, it's one of the changes in refs/users/aoliva/heads/testme that's not in refs/users/aoliva/headers/testbase right now) -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 15:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 15:30, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > An alternative approach for the g++ testsuite would be to provide a > > > set of dummy headers for the non-freestanding ones, so that all the > > > hosted-only headers are provided by the testsuite itself, but consist > > > of a single line: > > > > > #error not available in freestanding > > > > > Then match on that and XFAIL. So the individual tests themselves > > > wouldn't need the dg-skip-if added to them, they would just > > > automatically XFAIL if they use a hosted-only header. > > > > *nod*. That wouldn't cover all the circumstances, alas: there are tests > > that fail in freestanding mode not because of headers, but because > > -fcontracts (currently?) links libstdc++exp in, and that library is not > > even built in freestanding mode. > > Hmm, yes, that seems like a bug. Either we should provide > libstdc++exp.a for freestanding builds (with a simplified contract > violation handler that doesn't print to stdout), or the front end > should not add -lstdc++exp when -ffreestanding is used (which would > require teh user, or the testsuite in your case, to provide a custom > contract violation handler), or it should be an error to use > -fcontracts and -ffreestanding together. > > The libstdc++-v3/src/experimental/contract.cc file *already* supports > freestanding, we just don't actually build it for freestanding. We can > do that. Which might be as simple as: --- a/libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am +++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am @@ -34,14 +34,13 @@ backtrace_dir = libbacktrace else backtrace_dir = endif - -experimental_dir = experimental else filesystem_dir = backtrace_dir = -experimental_dir = endif +experimental_dir = experimental + ## Keep this list sync'd with acinclude.m4:GLIBCXX_CONFIGURE. SUBDIRS = c++98 c++11 c++17 c++20 c++23 \ $(filesystem_dir) $(backtrace_dir) $(experimental_dir)
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 15:30, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > An alternative approach for the g++ testsuite would be to provide a > > set of dummy headers for the non-freestanding ones, so that all the > > hosted-only headers are provided by the testsuite itself, but consist > > of a single line: > > > #error not available in freestanding > > > Then match on that and XFAIL. So the individual tests themselves > > wouldn't need the dg-skip-if added to them, they would just > > automatically XFAIL if they use a hosted-only header. > > *nod*. That wouldn't cover all the circumstances, alas: there are tests > that fail in freestanding mode not because of headers, but because > -fcontracts (currently?) links libstdc++exp in, and that library is not > even built in freestanding mode. Hmm, yes, that seems like a bug. Either we should provide libstdc++exp.a for freestanding builds (with a simplified contract violation handler that doesn't print to stdout), or the front end should not add -lstdc++exp when -ffreestanding is used (which would require teh user, or the testsuite in your case, to provide a custom contract violation handler), or it should be an error to use -fcontracts and -ffreestanding together. The libstdc++-v3/src/experimental/contract.cc file *already* supports freestanding, we just don't actually build it for freestanding. We can do that.
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Nov 7, 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > An alternative approach for the g++ testsuite would be to provide a > set of dummy headers for the non-freestanding ones, so that all the > hosted-only headers are provided by the testsuite itself, but consist > of a single line: > #error not available in freestanding > Then match on that and XFAIL. So the individual tests themselves > wouldn't need the dg-skip-if added to them, they would just > automatically XFAIL if they use a hosted-only header. *nod*. That wouldn't cover all the circumstances, alas: there are tests that fail in freestanding mode not because of headers, but because -fcontracts (currently?) links libstdc++exp in, and that library is not even built in freestanding mode. > The difficulty would be where to add those dummy headers for > , etc. so that they're only found when testing a > non-hosted build. Maybe libstdc++ could provide them in the build dir > for the purposes of the testsuite, but not install them? We run install-tree testing, so that wouldn't quite work for us. If the headers are in some subdirectory in the source tree, that we (or the testsuite machinery) would just add to the -I set, that would help. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:04, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > > > [adding libstdc++@] > > > > > > On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > > > > > > > Ick. > > > > > > Indeed ;-) > > > > > > > I wish there were fewer changed lines and not 1 per test > > > > case. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. > > > > > > The libstdc++ testsuite took a different approach, detecting missing > > > headers (and libraries?) at error pruning time, and xfailing the tests, > > > which seems to be more in line with what you are looking for. > > > > > > That approach, though more expedient, seems more fragile to me, in that > > > an actual bug that caused headers to go missing would cause tests to be > > > silently skipped rather than fail. > > > > I don't think we XFAIL based on missing headers. We XFAIL based on a > > specific #error message in certain headers. > > > > If a header goes missing, we'll still XFAIL. > > > > > > > > I expect the set of headers, and thus of affected tests, won't by very > > > dynamic, so it's kind of a one-shot change. > > > > > > Of course new tests might be added that rely on such headers, and would > > > likely go unnoticed until someone tries them on a non-hosted libstdc++. > > > > Since GCC 13 you don't need to build a non-hosted libstdc++ to test > > it, you can just add -ffreestanding to the runtestflags. > > > > > We could alleviate this if libstdc++ headers that are not installed on > > > hosted systems issued a warning (conditional on some macro defined by > > > the testsuite, say -D_GLIBCXX_WARN_HOSTED_ONLY). > > > > That's exactly what happens (except #error not #warning) when you > > compile with -ffreestanding. > > > > > For tests aimed > > > exclusively at hosted libstdc++, we'd then use a dg directive that both > > > implied this requirement, and changed the macro definition to suppress > > > the warning. Then anyone who added a testcase that included hosted > > > headers without indicating its hostedlib requirement would get a fail > > > even when testing with a hosted libstdc++. > > > > I don't think we need to add checks for a new macro and then use that > > when testing, you can just test with -ffreestanding instead. This > > already works today. > > Ah, reading back in the thread for the context I missed, I see that > you're specifically testing a --disable-hosted-libstdcxx build. In > that case some headers really will be absent, not just > present-with-#error. But I am still not concerned about failing to > notice if a header goes unintentionally missing, because the libstdc++ > testsuite will still notice that. > > We don't prune based on "no such header" errors, so would still get > FAILs for those tests that depend on headers which are supposed to be > present for freestanding. An alternative approach for the g++ testsuite would be to provide a set of dummy headers for the non-freestanding ones, so that all the hosted-only headers are provided by the testsuite itself, but consist of a single line: #error not available in freestanding Then match on that and XFAIL. So the individual tests themselves wouldn't need the dg-skip-if added to them, they would just automatically XFAIL if they use a hosted-only header. The difficulty would be where to add those dummy headers for , etc. so that they're only found when testing a non-hosted build. Maybe libstdc++ could provide them in the build dir for the purposes of the testsuite, but not install them?
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:04, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > [adding libstdc++@] > > > > On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > > > > > Ick. > > > > Indeed ;-) > > > > > I wish there were fewer changed lines and not 1 per test > > > case. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. > > > > The libstdc++ testsuite took a different approach, detecting missing > > headers (and libraries?) at error pruning time, and xfailing the tests, > > which seems to be more in line with what you are looking for. > > > > That approach, though more expedient, seems more fragile to me, in that > > an actual bug that caused headers to go missing would cause tests to be > > silently skipped rather than fail. > > I don't think we XFAIL based on missing headers. We XFAIL based on a > specific #error message in certain headers. > > If a header goes missing, we'll still XFAIL. > > > > > I expect the set of headers, and thus of affected tests, won't by very > > dynamic, so it's kind of a one-shot change. > > > > Of course new tests might be added that rely on such headers, and would > > likely go unnoticed until someone tries them on a non-hosted libstdc++. > > Since GCC 13 you don't need to build a non-hosted libstdc++ to test > it, you can just add -ffreestanding to the runtestflags. > > > We could alleviate this if libstdc++ headers that are not installed on > > hosted systems issued a warning (conditional on some macro defined by > > the testsuite, say -D_GLIBCXX_WARN_HOSTED_ONLY). > > That's exactly what happens (except #error not #warning) when you > compile with -ffreestanding. > > > For tests aimed > > exclusively at hosted libstdc++, we'd then use a dg directive that both > > implied this requirement, and changed the macro definition to suppress > > the warning. Then anyone who added a testcase that included hosted > > headers without indicating its hostedlib requirement would get a fail > > even when testing with a hosted libstdc++. > > I don't think we need to add checks for a new macro and then use that > when testing, you can just test with -ffreestanding instead. This > already works today. Ah, reading back in the thread for the context I missed, I see that you're specifically testing a --disable-hosted-libstdcxx build. In that case some headers really will be absent, not just present-with-#error. But I am still not concerned about failing to notice if a header goes unintentionally missing, because the libstdc++ testsuite will still notice that. We don't prune based on "no such header" errors, so would still get FAILs for those tests that depend on headers which are supposed to be present for freestanding.
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 10:04, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > [adding libstdc++@] > > On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > > > Ick. > > Indeed ;-) > > > I wish there were fewer changed lines and not 1 per test > > case. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. > > The libstdc++ testsuite took a different approach, detecting missing > headers (and libraries?) at error pruning time, and xfailing the tests, > which seems to be more in line with what you are looking for. > > That approach, though more expedient, seems more fragile to me, in that > an actual bug that caused headers to go missing would cause tests to be > silently skipped rather than fail. I don't think we XFAIL based on missing headers. We XFAIL based on a specific #error message in certain headers. If a header goes missing, we'll still XFAIL. > > I expect the set of headers, and thus of affected tests, won't by very > dynamic, so it's kind of a one-shot change. > > Of course new tests might be added that rely on such headers, and would > likely go unnoticed until someone tries them on a non-hosted libstdc++. Since GCC 13 you don't need to build a non-hosted libstdc++ to test it, you can just add -ffreestanding to the runtestflags. > We could alleviate this if libstdc++ headers that are not installed on > hosted systems issued a warning (conditional on some macro defined by > the testsuite, say -D_GLIBCXX_WARN_HOSTED_ONLY). That's exactly what happens (except #error not #warning) when you compile with -ffreestanding. > For tests aimed > exclusively at hosted libstdc++, we'd then use a dg directive that both > implied this requirement, and changed the macro definition to suppress > the warning. Then anyone who added a testcase that included hosted > headers without indicating its hostedlib requirement would get a fail > even when testing with a hosted libstdc++. I don't think we need to add checks for a new macro and then use that when testing, you can just test with -ffreestanding instead. This already works today.
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
[adding libstdc++@] On Nov 5, 2023, Mike Stump wrote: > Ick. Indeed ;-) > I wish there were fewer changed lines and not 1 per test > case. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. The libstdc++ testsuite took a different approach, detecting missing headers (and libraries?) at error pruning time, and xfailing the tests, which seems to be more in line with what you are looking for. That approach, though more expedient, seems more fragile to me, in that an actual bug that caused headers to go missing would cause tests to be silently skipped rather than fail. I expect the set of headers, and thus of affected tests, won't by very dynamic, so it's kind of a one-shot change. Of course new tests might be added that rely on such headers, and would likely go unnoticed until someone tries them on a non-hosted libstdc++. We could alleviate this if libstdc++ headers that are not installed on hosted systems issued a warning (conditional on some macro defined by the testsuite, say -D_GLIBCXX_WARN_HOSTED_ONLY). For tests aimed exclusively at hosted libstdc++, we'd then use a dg directive that both implied this requirement, and changed the macro definition to suppress the warning. Then anyone who added a testcase that included hosted headers without indicating its hostedlib requirement would get a fail even when testing with a hosted libstdc++. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
Re: testsuite: introduce hostedlib effective target
On Nov 1, 2023, at 6:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Several C++ tests fail with --disable-hosted-libstdcxx, whether > because stdc++ext gets linked in despite not being built, because > standard headers are included but that are unavailable in this mode, > or because headers are (mistakenly?) expected to introduce > declarations such as for ::abort, but in this mode they don't. > > This patch introduces an effective target for GCC test, equivalent to > one that's available in the libstdc++-v3 testsuite, and arranges for > all such tests to be skipped when libstdc++-v3 is not hosted. > > This patch was tested with arm-eabi, with libstdc++-v3 configured with > --disable-hosted-libstdcxx, on gcc-13, and with x86_64-linux-gnu > likewise on trunk. In the latter, there are a number of additional > fails that appear to be related, and that I'm yet to investigate, but > this is big enough already, so I figured I'd post this and see whether > the approach is regarded as sound and acceptable before proceeding any > further. WDYT? Ok to install, to deal with other targets > incrementally? Ick. I wish there were fewer changed lines and not 1 per test case. It feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. That said, I'd rather have a nice solid game plan that is better and suggest it over this approach but, the best I can think of it something that can notice after the fact during an error, and during error processing, trim or expect, which is awfully vague. So, instead of commenting more, I'd ask if anyone has a nice, good concrete idea and say I want to withdraw from the vague. If someone comes up with something you think is better, easy, smaller and or other goodness and you want to go that direction, I'd encourage that, otherwise, I'll approve this version.
