Launchpad has imported 14 comments from the remote bug at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684.
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://documentation.ubuntu.com/launchpad/user/reference/bugs/multi-project-bugs/about-multi-project-bugs/#bugs-in-external-trackers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-12T13:53:07+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: when binutils 2.20 branch is built with gcc-4.4 branch or trunk, I see the following test failures in the ld testsuite. Checked with gcc-4.4 from debian/testing, debian/unstable and ubuntu/karmic, and gcc-snapshot (4.5 20091010) from debian/unstable. Running /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp ... FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC) FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset) FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC) FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset) Running /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ... FAIL: shared (non PIC) FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset) FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so) test failures are: FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC) 22c22 < main_visibility_checkvar () == 0 --- > main_visibility_checkvar () == 1 FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset) 22c22 < main_visibility_checkvar () == 0 --- > main_visibility_checkvar () == 1 FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC) 22c22 < main_visibility_checkvar () == 0 --- > main_visibility_checkvar () == 1 FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset) 22c22 < main_visibility_checkvar () == 0 --- > main_visibility_checkvar () == 1 Running /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ... FAIL: shared (non PIC) 5c5 < shlib_overriddenvar () == -1 --- > shlib_overriddenvar () == 2 FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset) 5c5 < shlib_overriddenvar () == -1 --- > shlib_overriddenvar () == 2 FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so) 5c5 < shlib_overriddenvar () == -1 --- > shlib_overriddenvar () == 2 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-13T22:02:18+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: Confirmed. I've built binutils-2.19.1 and binutils-2.19.92 with gcc-4.3.4 (plus loads of well-tested fixes) and gcc-4.4.1 vanilla on an armv5tel-linux-gnueabi machine, and for both binutils versions using gcc-4.4.1 caused the 7 new testsuite failures you listed. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-14T17:07:40+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one. (*) 4.4 snapshots around this time also cause the following failures: Running /tmp/binutils-2.19.92/ld/testsuite/ld-arm/arm-elf.exp ... FAIL: BE8 Mapping Symbols FAIL: Thumb-ARM farcall (BE8) FAIL: Thumb-ARM farcall (BE) but they seem to be gone with gcc-4.4.1 so I'm ignoring them. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-14T17:24:00+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: 138206 2008-07-28 OK 2008-11-16 FAIL (gcc-snapshot build) that looks consistent with my test builds; with the 2008-07-28 build the ld testsuite passes without failures Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-14T21:21:12+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: > A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as > the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one. build in between fail for me with: /opt/doko/gcc/139572/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/doko/gcc/139572/./gcc/ -B/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/bin/ -B/opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/lib/ -isystem /opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/include -isystem /opt/doko/gcc/install-139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/sys-include -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/../include -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat -Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c -o fibheap.o ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:1: warning: target CPU does not support interworking ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_union': ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:151: warning: implicit declaration of function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:151: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:156: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:172: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_extract_min': ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:190: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_delete_node': ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: 'LONG_MIN' undeclared (first use in this function) ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:258: error: for each function it appears in.) ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_delete': ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:269: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c: In function 'fibheap_consolidate': ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:360: warning: implicit declaration of function 'memset' ../../../gcc-4_4-branch/libiberty/fibheap.c:360: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'memset' make[2]: *** [fibheap.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/opt/doko/gcc/139572/arm-linux-gnueabi/libiberty' make[1]: *** [all-target-libiberty] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/doko/gcc/139572' make: *** [all] Error 2 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-14T21:26:12+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: looking at the interval there a three arm specific commits: 2008-08-23 Paolo Carlini <[email protected]> 2008-08-23 Sebastian Redl <[email protected]> - r139509: exception propagation support 2008-08-26 Vladimir Makarov <[email protected]> - r139590: IRA merge 2008-08-26 Paul Brook <[email protected]> - r139603, r139599: arm vfp fixes Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-15T02:09:59+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-15T14:12:32+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: (In reply to comment #6) > A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression. That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by default at -O1 and above. Compiling with -fno-section-anchors eliminates the regressions in the binutils ld testsuite (tested with 4.4.1 and 4.5-20091008). I did a test with the range of anchor offsets reduced from [-4088,+4095] to a tiny [-120,+127], which should work with any arm instruction, but that did not eliminate the regressions. I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-15T14:14:10+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: Created attachment 18799 kludge to disable section anchors on arm for gcc-4.4 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-15T15:17:48+00:00 Ramana-gcc wrote: (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression. > > That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by > default at -O1 and above. Compiling with -fno-section-anchors eliminates the > regressions in the binutils ld testsuite (tested with 4.4.1 and 4.5-20091008). > > I did a test with the range of anchor offsets reduced from [-4088,+4095] to a > tiny [-120,+127], which should work with any arm instruction, but that did not > eliminate the regressions. > > I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors > on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures. > I would rather find out why the middle end function use_anchor_for_symbol doesn't reject the symbol for section anchors and fix this appropriately by either specifying appropriate binds_local_p or the use_anchor_for_symbol handler appropriately. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-16T15:16:39+00:00 Mikpelinux wrote: (In reply to comment #7) > I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors > on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures. Done. It caused no new failures but fixed several objc ones: @@ -339,34 +339,14 @@ Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/compile/compile.exp ... Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/execute/exceptions/exceptions.exp ... Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc/execute/execute.exp ... -FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation, -O1 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation, -O2 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-13.m compilation, -Os -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation, -O1 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation, -O2 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/class-6.m compilation, -Os -fgnu-runtime FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O0 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O1 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O2 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m compilation, -Os -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation, -O1 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation, -O2 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_class.m compilation, -Os -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation, -O1 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation, -O2 -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime -FAIL: objc/execute/object_is_meta_class.m compilation, -Os -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O1 -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O2 -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -O3 -g -fgnu-runtime +FAIL: objc/execute/forward-1.m execution, -Os -fgnu-runtime Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/dg.exp ... Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/gnu-encoding/gnu-encoding.exp ... Running /home/mikpe/gcc-4.4/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/pch/pch.exp ... @@ -374,10 +354,9 @@ === objc Summary === -# of expected passes 1819 -# of unexpected failures 28 +# of expected passes 1866 +# of unexpected failures 8 # of expected failures 7 -# of unresolved testcases 27 # of unsupported tests 24 I had hoped that it might fix some small C or C++ test case which could then be used for debugging section anchors, but no such luck. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-26T10:36:13+00:00 Ramana-gcc wrote: (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section > > anchors > > on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures. > > Done. It caused no new failures but fixed several objc ones: Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-26T11:06:21+00:00 Kirill-shutemov wrote: (In reply to comment #11) > Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ? Yes, it did. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-10-27T14:58:49+00:00 Ramana-gcc wrote: (In reply to comment #0) > when binutils 2.20 branch is built with gcc-4.4 branch or trunk, I see the > following test failures in the ld testsuite. Checked with gcc-4.4 from > debian/testing, debian/unstable and ubuntu/karmic, and gcc-snapshot (4.5 > 20091010) from debian/unstable. > > Running > /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp ... > FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC) > FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset) > FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC) > FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset) > Running > /home/doko/tmp/binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ... > FAIL: shared (non PIC) > FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset) > FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so) When generating code that is not position independent, the compiler is entitled to enable optimizations that don't retain the property of symbol pre-emption that is possible with shared libraries and position independent code. Section anchors is one optimization that doesn't retain symbol pre-emptibility in shared libraries and hence is disabled when generating PIC code. All these failures are because the tests are trying to create non-PIC .so's with section anchors turned on. The tests need to be fixed with respect to section anchors by building them with -fno-section-anchors for the arm-linux-gnueabi port. The Objective C testsuite failures should be fixed by disabling section anchors in the objective C and C++ frontend and not by disabling this in the backend. Look at the mail thread here for reference. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg02194.html However that is a subject of a separate bug report, though these failures might be related to PR41617. Hence this is an INVALID bug as far as GCC is concerned and hence marking it so. cheers Ramana Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/446478/comments/23 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/446478 Title: testsuite failures in the ld testsuite on arm-linux-gnueabi To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/446478/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
