Am Montag, dem 01.07.2024 um 14:29 -0300 schrieb Thiago Jung Bauermann:
> Hello Martin,
> 
> Martin Uecker <uec...@tugraz.at> writes:
> 
> > This should fix the test failures introduced by the fix for PR115157.
> > 
> > Tested on x86_64 and also tested with -m32.
> > 
> > 
> >     Fix test errors introduced with fix for PR115157.
> >     
> >     Fix tests introduced when fixing PR115157 that assume 
> > sizeof(enum)==sizeof(int)
> >     by adding the flag -fno-short-enums.
> >     
> >     gcc/testsuite/Changelog:
> >             * gcc.dg/enum-alias-1.c: Add flag.
> >             * gcc.dg/enum-alias-2.c: Add flag.
> >             * gcc.dg/enum-alias-3.c: Add flag.
> >             * gcc.dg/enum-alias-4.c: Add flag.
> 
> Thank you for the patch! It fixes the execution test failures but
> unfortunately they still have excess errors failures due to an
> unexpected linker warning:
> 
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP 
> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/builds/destdir/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/arm-eabi-gcc
>  
> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/enum-alias-1.c
>  -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O2 -fno-short-enums -specs=rdimon.specs -lm -o 
> ./enum-alias-1.exe
> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/builds/destdir/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/arm-eabi/15.0.0/../../../../arm-eabi/bin/ld:
>  warning: /tmp/ccP9AJZd.o uses 32-bit enums yet the output is to use 
> variable-size enums; use of enum values across objects may fail
>     ⋮
> FAIL: gcc.dg/enum-alias-1.c (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/builds/destdir/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/arm-eabi/15.0.0/../../../../arm-eabi/bin/ld:
>  warning: /tmp/ccP9AJZd.o uses 32-bit enums yet the output is to use 
> variable-size enums; use of enum values across objects may fail
> 
> The same happens with gcc.dg/enum-alias-[234].c.

Thank you!

BTW: Did you try the other testsuite patch as well?

[PATCH] Fix test errors after r15-1394 for sizeof(int)==sizeof(long) [PR115545]

Best,
Martin

> 

Reply via email to