[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #14 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Wed Feb 6 18:54:16 2019 New Revision: 268588 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268588&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c with Solaris as (PR debug/87451) PR debug/87451 * gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c: Allow for non-comment before "(DIE (0x[0-9a-f]*) DW_TAG_variable". xfail scan-assembler-not with Solaris as. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Feb 1 09:08:55 2019 New Revision: 268446 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268446&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-02-01 Richard Biener PR testsuite/87451 * gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c: Allow more comment variants. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- Fixed again.
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9) > Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters, > # vs. // in your file. The pattern for the comment stuff is > > \[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW > > skip until first comment-char (ok), then consume comment (bogus). Adding > + might help. Can you check that? Yes, that patch fixed the failure I was seeing on aarch64.
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9)
> Created attachment 45559 [details]
> Assembly output from aarch64-linux-gnu
>
> This test is still failing on aarch64. Attached is the .s file from a
> top-of-tree GCC build on aarch64-linux-gnu.
Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters,
# vs. // in your file. The pattern for the comment stuff is
\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW
skip until first comment-char (ok), then consume comment (bogus). Adding
+ might help. Can you check that?
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (revision 268383)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (working copy)
@@ -4,13 +4,13 @@
/* { dg-options "-O -gdwarf -dA" } */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
DW_AT_abstract_origin" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
\\(DIE \\(0x\[0-9a-f\]*\\) DW_TAG_variable" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]+
DW_AT_abstract_origin" 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]+
\\(DIE \\(0x\[0-9a-f\]*\\) DW_TAG_variable" 1 } } */
/* We do not know which is output first so look for both invalid abstract
origins on the lexical blocks (knowing that the abstract instance has
no attribute following the DW_TAG_lexical_block. */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(DIE \\(0x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\\)
DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
\[^(\].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x\\1\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
DW_AT_abstract_origin" } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not
"DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\)
DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(DIE \\(0x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\\)
DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]+
\[^(\].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x\\1\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]
DW_AT_abstract_origin" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not
"DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]+
DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\)
DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\]+ DW_AT" } } */
int foo (int i)
{
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey --- Created attachment 45559 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45559&action=edit Assembly output from aarch64-linux-gnu This test is still failing on aarch64. Attached is the .s file from a top-of-tree GCC build on aarch64-linux-gnu.
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 44763 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44763&action=edit i386-pc-solaris2.11 inline5.s
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 44762 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44762&action=edit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 -m32 inline5.s
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth --- Unfortunately, while the previous failures are gone on Solaris, I've got two new ones now: FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not (DIE (0x([0-9a-f]*)) DW_TAG_lexical_block)[^#/!]*[#/!] [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block)[^#/!x]*x1[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block)[^#/!]*[#/!] (DIE (0x[0-9a-f]*) DW_TAG_variable 1 Again, both 32 and 64-bit sparc and x86. The latter seems to be due to the fact that the Solaris assemblers don't support .uleb, so we have x86: .byte 0xc / uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) sparc: .byte 0xc ! uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x18b) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xd ! uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x18c) DW_TAG_variable) which needs to be accounted for. The former is probably caused by Tcl doing multiline matches by default, so "." in a regex also matches newline. I'm attaching the sparc and x86 assembler output for reference.
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Sep 27 14:17:52 2018 New Revision: 264668 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264668&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-09-27 Richard Biener PR testsuite/87451 * gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c: Deal with different comment characters. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Fixed.
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|aarch64, arm|aarch64, ||arm,sparc-sun-solaris2.*,i3 ||86-pc-solaris2.* CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|FAIL: |FAIL: |gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5 |gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5 |.c on aarch64 and arm |.c --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth --- The test also FAILs on Solaris/SPARC and x86 with /bin/as, which have different comment signs: x86: .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x160) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xc / uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xb / uleb128 0xb; (TAG: DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xb / uleb128 0xb; (TAG: DW_TAG_lexical_block) sparc: .byte 0x6 ! uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x14c) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xc ! uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x18b) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0x6 ! uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1b0) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xb ! uleb128 0xb; (TAG: DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xb ! uleb128 0xb; (TAG: DW_TAG_lexical_block)
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c on aarch64 and arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2018-09-27 Version|unknown |9.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, looks like the test depends on the fix for PR87440 to go in. So let's just wait until Jason approves that. As you can see the testcase is named inline5.c and the mentioned adds inline4.c which means I expected to install them in the other way around ...
[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c on aarch64 and arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0 Summary|[9 Regression] FAIL:|FAIL: |gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5 |gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5 |.c on aarch64 and arm |.c on aarch64 and arm Known to fail||9.0 --- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Not a regression I guess since it's a new test.
