Launchpad has imported 24 comments from the remote bug at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42748.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-14T18:15:44+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00670.html and followups. seen on the gcc-4_4-branch and the trunk, glibc version is eglibc-2.11.1 when running the libstdc++v3 testsuite on arm-linux-gnueabi, a lot of test cases fail with excess errors, e.g. FAIL: 17_intro/using_namespace_std_tr1_neg.cc (test for excess errors) Excess errors: In file included from /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h:2562, from /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/string:53, from /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/bitset:49, from /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/using_namespace_std_tr1_neg.cc:23: /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/string_conversions.h: In instantiation of '_String __gnu_cxx::__to_xstring(int (*)(_CharT*, size_t, const _CharT*, __va_list), size_t, const _CharT*, ...) [with _String = std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, _CharT = char]': /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h:2610: instantiated from here /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.2/build/arm-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/string_conversions.h:90: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4 http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37789038/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-armel.gcc- snapshot_20100109-0ubuntu2_FULLYBUILT.txt.gz Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-14T18:26:21+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Mark, can you have a look to this issue, thanks! Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-14T19:22:57+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Paolo -- I think that the warning is accurate; the mangling of va_list has indeed changed on ARM in GCC 4.4 in order to conform to the ARM ABI specifications. There is an option to turn off warnings about PSABI issues; -Wno-psabi. I think that option (if not some stronger option) should be used. Oh, wait. Maybe we should not warn about this in a system header. That's probably the right choice and a trivial change to arm_mangle_type. Do you agree? -- Mark Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-14T20:31:44+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Indeed. Matthias filed the PR and then I only changed the Summary to better clarify that the point is simply not warning, *ever*, in system headers. Nice that you agree about that analysis of mine and that a fix seems easy ;) Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-15T00:17:11+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: OK, I will fix this one. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-25T03:14:37+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Subject: Bug 42748 Author: mmitchel Date: Mon Jan 25 03:14:25 2010 New Revision: 156202 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156202 Log: PR c++/42748 * config/arm/arm.c (arm_mangle_type): Do not warn about changes to mangling of va_list in system headers. PR c++/42748 * g++.dg/abi/arm_va_list2.C: New test. * g++.dg/abi/arm_va_list2.h: Companion header file. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/arm_va_list2.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/arm_va_list2.h Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-25T03:16:38+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Fixed. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-27T14:21:49+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: please consider a backport for the 4.4 branch Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-27T14:52:51+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: If you say 'consider' and are talking to a GWP and release manager, it seems unpolite to re-open at once. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-27T20:04:06+00:00 Mark Mitchell wrote: Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > If you say 'consider' and are talking to a GWP and release manager, it seems > unpolite to re-open at once. I certainly took no offense. I do think the patch would apply easily to GCC 4.4, and I think it's appropriate to apply it there. However, I have so little bandwidth for GCC development these days that I will not be able to quickly do the appropriate patch/test cycle. Matthias, would you like to do that? If so, the patch is certainly pre-approved. If not, I'll put it in my queue, but please be patient. Thanks, Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-27T20:25:26+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: I didn't intend to be inpolite. Currently running a test build; will commit if the build succeeds without regressions. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-27T21:24:00+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Actually, the preferred spelling is impolite, thus neither unpolite, nor inpolite ;) Anyway, IMVHO the patch is really safe, thus, great that Matthias can do the backport. In general, I just *hate* these quick reopenings after somebody knowledgeable has closed an issue for a reason. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-29T08:37:49+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: checked the patch on the 4.4 branch; the error message for the test case in the original report is gone, but there are some warnings about the mangling in the libstdc++ files as well. not reopening yet, as I didn't check a build on the trunk yet. /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception _ptr/rethrow_exception.cc:114: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GC C 4.4 output is: /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/exception _ptr/rethrow_exception.cc:114: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GC C 4.4 FAIL: 18_support/exception_ptr/rethrow_exception.cc (test for excess errors) /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/error _category/cons/default.cc:33: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4 output is: /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/error _category/cons/default.cc:33: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4 FAIL: 19_diagnostics/error_category/cons/default.cc (test for excess errors) /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/error _category/operators/equal.cc:34: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4 FAIL: 19_diagnostics/error_code/cons/1.cc (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/doko/gcc/4.4/gcc-4.4-4.4.3/src/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/19_diagnostics/error_code/cons/1.cc:45: note: the mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-29T13:09:34+00:00 Manu-gcc wrote: Why is this a note and not simply a warning? Anyway, in_system_header should slowly go away, either use diagnostic_report_warnings_p (input_location) or in_system_header_at (input_location). None of them is necessary if you just used warning(OPT_Wpsabi,). Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-29T13:40:22+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: I can see that exception_ptr.h doesn't have the system header pragma, I think on purpose, some time ago we briefly discussed that and decided to not add it to the libsupc++ user-visible headers, if possible. <system_error> however *does* have it, thus, if there are problems with it in mainline, it's because inform do not behave exactly like normal warnings, I think Joseph warned us about that... In general, I would say Manuel has very good points about this issue. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-01-29T15:12:56+00:00 Mark Mitchell wrote: Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Why is this a note and not simply a warning? Because, as noted earlier, it's not reflective of any likely problem in the user's code. I think a warning is appropriate if the compiler detects something which might indicate a bug in the application, but this is just the compiler telling you about that something might go wrong if you linked with code form a different version of G++. Which is unlikely, and might go wrong for other reasons too. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T04:40:02+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Paolo -- I don't understand why all libstdc++ headers should not have #pragma GCC system_header in them. Would you please explain that? I think there's a semantic hair that we could split about whether they are "system" headers or "compiler" headers, but in either case, we never want to warn about them. If we made this note into a warning, we would still warn because we would still see that this is not a system header. Thanks, -- Mark Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T09:36:01+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: (In reply to comment #16) > I don't understand why all libstdc++ headers should not have #pragma GCC > system_header in them. Would you please explain that? Hi Mark. For sure all the *library proper* headers should have (and afaik, have already) the pragma. If I understand correctly, the doubt is about the libsupc++ headers: at some point in the past we discussed that briefly and we came to the conclusion that if we could avoid decorating those too it would be cleaner (Gaby agreed, I'm 100% sure). But indeed, nothing set in stone, at least for 4.5.x, if we want to decorate the few user visibile headers in libsupc++, I do not object. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T15:13:19+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Paolo -- I think libsupc++ is just as much a "system library" as libstdc++. It doesn't have an ISO-standard API, of course, but that's not the point; it's just as much a part of the system/implementation as libstdc++. To the extent a program is going to use a header that we ship from libsupc++, that program certainly doesn't want to get random warnings about those headers. However, Julian Brown warns me that he's been playing with this and that it doesn't entirely solve the problem. It may be that my earlier patch to arm.c is insufficient in some cases. So, I'd like the libstdc++ maintainers to make the change to the libsupc++ headers -- unless someone can articulate a good reason not to do so of course -- but there may still be more work to do. We will continue to investigate the possible non-workingness of the patch. Thanks, -- Mark Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T15:24:02+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Ok, it's just an handful of files, after all. If Julian wants to add the pragmas, the change is pre-approved, otherwise, just let me know when you have the other issues under control, and I'll do it. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/23 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T19:44:13+00:00 Manu-gcc wrote: (In reply to comment #15) > Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed > in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers > > manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > > Why is this a note and not simply a warning? > > Because, as noted earlier, it's not reflective of any likely problem in > the user's code. I think a warning is appropriate if the compiler > detects something which might indicate a bug in the application, but > this is just the compiler telling you about that something might go > wrong if you linked with code form a different version of G++. Which is > unlikely, and might go wrong for other reasons too. So it is the compiler telling you that something might go wrong and you can silence it with -Wno-psabi, which is a warning option. Moreover, as it stands now, if someone has -Werror=psabi, the compilation will not stop and they might get bitten by this. Moreover2, -w will not silence the note. I still completely fail to see why it is a note and not a warning. In any case, using diagnostic_report_warnings_p (location) should fix it. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-18T19:47:45+00:00 Mark Mitchell wrote: Subject: Re: warnings about 'mangling of 'va_list' has changed in GCC 4.4' not suppressed in sytem headers manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > In any case, using diagnostic_report_warnings_p (location) should fix it. AFAICT, this is not the case; at the point of mangling, input_location does not necessarily reflect the location at which the function was declared. Julian Brown and I are looking into this. Thanks, Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-02-28T17:08:12+00:00 Mmitchel-gcc wrote: Subject: Bug 42748 Author: mmitchel Date: Sun Feb 28 17:07:54 2010 New Revision: 157124 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157124 Log: 2010-02-27 Mark Mitchell <[email protected]> PR c++/42748 * cp-tree.h (push_tinst_level): Declare. (pop_tinst_level): Likewise. * pt.c (push_tinst_level): Give it external linkage. (pop_tinst_level): Likewise. * mangle.c (mangle_decl_string): Set the source location to that of the decl while mangling. 2010-02-27 Mark Mitchell <[email protected]> PR c++/42748 * g++.dg/abi/mangle11.C: Adjust mangling warning locations. * g++.dg/abi/mangle12.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/abi/mangle20-2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/abi/mangle17.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/template/cond2.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/template/pr35240.C: Likewise. Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h trunk/gcc/cp/mangle.c trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle11.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle12.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle17.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/mangle20-2.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/cond2.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/pr35240.C Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/26 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-03-01T10:20:16+00:00 Dominiq wrote: *** Bug 40459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/505829/comments/27 ** Changed in: gcc Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/505829 Title: [PR42748, armel] excess errors in libstdc++ testsuite when built with glibc-2.11 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
