| Message ID | CAEwic4Zbg0uoN5yDag3Xn3i44isNw7EJEtKV0hTKxkNhFeSgPA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: > this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue > here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and > therefore test doesn't apply for So, what does the output look like? There should be a trace of weak of some sort in the output.
2014-03-19 17:23 GMT+01:00 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>: > On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: >> this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue >> here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and >> therefore test doesn't apply for > > So, what does the output look like? There should be a trace of weak of some sort in the output. No, there is none. Output looks like: .seh_proc _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_ _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_: .LFB11: .seh_endprologue ret .seh_endproc .globl _ZN2N41qE .data .align 8 _ZN2N41qE: .quad _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_ .globl _ZN2N41pE .align 8 _ZN2N41pE: .quad _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn1ENS0_1BE .globl _ZN2N31qE .align 8 _ZN2N31qE: .quad _ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn2ES2_... The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF targets. Kai PS: I have another similiar reasoned patch for g++.dg/abi/thunk5.C on my pile too.
Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> writes: > 2014-03-19 17:23 GMT+01:00 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>: >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue >>> here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and >>> therefore test doesn't apply for >> >> So, what does the output look like? There should be a trace of weak of >> some sort in the output. > > No, there is none. Output looks like: > > .seh_proc _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_ > _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_: > .LFB11: > .seh_endprologue > ret > .seh_endproc > .globl _ZN2N41qE > .data > .align 8 > _ZN2N41qE: > .quad _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn2ES2_ > .globl _ZN2N41pE > .align 8 > _ZN2N41pE: > .quad _ZN2N43._91CIiE3fn1ENS0_1BE > .globl _ZN2N31qE > .align 8 > _ZN2N31qE: > .quad _ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn2ES2_... > > The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in > general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and > in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF > targets. In that case, it seems far better to have gcc/testsuite/lib/target-support.exp (check_weak_available) reflect that instead of lying about weak support. This way, everything else simply falls into place; no need to special-case many individual testcases. Rainer
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2014-03-19 17:23 GMT+01:00 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>: >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue >>> here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and >>> therefore test doesn't apply for >> >> So, what does the output look like? There should be a trace of weak of some sort in the output. > > No, there is none. So, does the target support weak?
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote: >> The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in >> general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and >> in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF >> targets. > > In that case, it seems far better to have > gcc/testsuite/lib/target-support.exp (check_weak_available) reflect that > instead of lying about weak support. Yeah, this is the direction I was headed… :-)
2014-03-19 17:54 GMT+01:00 Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>: > On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote: >>> The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in >>> general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and >>> in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF >>> targets. >> >> In that case, it seems far better to have >> gcc/testsuite/lib/target-support.exp (check_weak_available) reflect that >> instead of lying about weak support. > > Yeah, this is the direction I was headed... :-) Ok, I will sent a patch for changing target-support.exp. And yes, target supports a kind of weak, but not the expected gnu-weak. Thanks, Kai
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote: > The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in > general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and > in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF > targets. There are already two different checks (check_weak_available and check_weak_override_available), reflecting what different testcases need. Is the requirement for these tests logically different from both of those? If so, maybe there should be a third such check (even if in fact it does the same thing as check_weak_override_available).
2014-03-19 18:37 GMT+01:00 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Kai Tietz wrote: > >> The concept of weak - as present in ELF - isn't known in COFF in >> general. There is some weak, but it works only for static library and >> in a limitted way. Therefore we can't (and don't) use it for COFF >> targets. > > There are already two different checks (check_weak_available and > check_weak_override_available), reflecting what different testcases need. > Is the requirement for these tests logically different from both of those? > If so, maybe there should be a third such check (even if in fact it does > the same thing as check_weak_override_available). > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com On a second thought the disabling of weak-available for mingw-targets seems to be wrong. Actually weak is present. It just has a different meaning. Those testcases are - AFAIU them - actually checking that weaks are available. Nevertheless the check here intends to probe if weak-override is possible. As otherwise weaks make no sense here AFAICS. I don't think that we need to add a third check here. It might be enough to check for weak-override-available instead for those tests. Kai
On 03/18/14 07:16, Kai Tietz wrote: > Hi, > > this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue > here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and > therefore test doesn't apply for > > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn1ENS0_1BE > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn2ES1_ > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn1ENS0_1BE > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn2ES2_ > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++1y scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn1ENS0_1BE > FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++1y scan-assembler > .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn2ES1_ > ... > > ChangeLog > > 2014-03-18 Kai Tietz <ktietz@redhat.com> > > * g++.dg/abi/anon2.C: Skip for mingw targets. > * g++.dg/abi/anon3.C: Likewise. > > Tested for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and i686-w64-mingw32. Ok for apply? Yes. This is fine. Sorry for the delay. Jeff
Index: anon2.C =================================================================== --- anon2.C (Revision 208594) +++ anon2.C (Arbeitskopie) @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ // PR c++/55877 // { dg-require-weak "" } +// { dg-skip-if "requires unsupported weak in pe-coff" { *-*-mingw* } } namespace N1 { typedef struct { Index: anon3.C =================================================================== --- anon3.C (Revision 208594) +++ anon3.C (Arbeitskopie) @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ // { dg-require-weak "" } +// { dg-skip-if "requires unsupported weak in pe-coff" { *-*-mingw* } } typedef struct { // { dg-final { scan-assembler ".weak\(_definition\)?\[
Hi, this patch skips anon2.C and anon3.C test for mingw target. Issue here is that weak under pe-coff is different to ELF-targets and therefore test doesn't apply for FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn1ENS0_1BE FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn2ES1_ FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn1ENS0_1BE FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++11 scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N31D1CIiE3fn2ES2_ FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++1y scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn1ENS0_1BE FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon2.C -std=c++1y scan-assembler .weak(_definition)?[ \t]_?_ZN2N11D1C3fn2ES1_ ... ChangeLog 2014-03-18 Kai Tietz <ktietz@redhat.com> * g++.dg/abi/anon2.C: Skip for mingw targets. * g++.dg/abi/anon3.C: Likewise. Tested for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and i686-w64-mingw32. Ok for apply? Regards, Kai \t\]_?_ZN4Heya4blahEv" } }