[GCC PR55056] Re: [RFC patch] testsuite: Workaround issues with GCC 4.8.0pre + gdb.trace new KFAIL

2013-06-14 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi!

To highlight this issue again, http://gcc.gnu.org/PR55056, now that
Debian testing has switched to GCC 4.8:

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:27:21 +0100, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 
wrote:
 gdb/testsuite/
 2013-02-02  Jan Kratochvil  jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
 
   Workaround GCC PR debug/55056 and GDB PR server/15081.
   * gdb.base/restore.c (caller3): Protect l1 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
   (caller4): Protect l1 and l2 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
   (caller5): Protect l1, l2 and l3 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
   * gdb.base/restore.exp: New variable opts.  Test caller3, caller4 and
   caller5 for l1, l2 and l3.  New prepare_for_testing.
   * gdb.base/store.c (wack_longest, wack_float, wack_double)
   (wack_doublest): Protect l and r by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
   * gdb.base/store.exp: New variable opts.  Test longest, float, double
   and doublest functions for l and r.  New prepare_for_testing.
   * gdb.trace/collection.c (reglocal_test_func): Protect locf and locd by
   GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.  Protect locar by GDB_PR_15081 #ifdef.
   * gdb.trace/unavailable.c: Likewise.
   * gdb.trace/collection.exp: New variable opts.  Test reglocal_test_func
   for locf, locd and locar.  New prepare_for_testing.
   (gdb_collect_locals_test): Increase list size to 43.
   * gdb.trace/unavailable.exp: Likewise.

As far as I can tell, no consensus has yet been reached about the
approach to fix this issue discussed in this thread.  (I have not looked
at the proposed patch in detail.)

I had already been configuring my native GDB builds with CC=gcc-4.8
CXX=g++-4.8, and naively assumed the same compiler as specified on the
configure command-line would be used for the GDB testsuite -- which is
not true, as it now turns out.  Is this to be considered a bug in the GDB
build/test harness?

Anyway, upon Debian testing/unstable just switching the default system
compiler from 4.7 to 4.8, the following new FAILs appear in my native x86
GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd testing:

--- [...]/gdb.base2/gdb.sum
+++ [...]/gdb.base2/gdb.sum
@@ -1395,31 +1395,31 @@ PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: run to caller3
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; tbreak callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; continue to callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; return callee now
-PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; return restored l1 to 
32492
+FAIL: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; return restored l1 to 
32492
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; return restored l2 to 
32493
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee1; return restored l3 to 
32494
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; tbreak callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; continue to callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; return callee now
-PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; return restored l1 to 
32492
+FAIL: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; return restored l1 to 
32492
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; return restored l2 to 
32493
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee2; return restored l3 to 
32494
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; tbreak callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; continue to callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; return callee now
-PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; return restored l1 to 
32492
+FAIL: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; return restored l1 to 
32492
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; return restored l2 to 
32493
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee3; return restored l3 to 
32494
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; tbreak callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; continue to callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; return callee now
-PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; return restored l1 to 
32492
+FAIL: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; return restored l1 to 
32492
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; return restored l2 to 
32493
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee4; return restored l3 to 
32494
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; tbreak callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; continue to callee
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; return callee now
-PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; return restored l1 to 
32492
+FAIL: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; return restored l1 to 
32492
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; return restored l2 to 
32493
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: caller3 calls callee5; return restored l3 to 
32494
 PASS: gdb.base/restore.exp: 

Re: [GCC PR55056] Re: [RFC patch] testsuite: Workaround issues with GCC 4.8.0pre + gdb.trace new KFAIL

2013-06-14 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:02:47 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
 On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:27:21 +0100, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 
 wrote:
  gdb/testsuite/
  2013-02-02  Jan Kratochvil  jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
  
  Workaround GCC PR debug/55056 and GDB PR server/15081.
  * gdb.base/restore.c (caller3): Protect l1 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
  (caller4): Protect l1 and l2 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
  (caller5): Protect l1, l2 and l3 by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
  * gdb.base/restore.exp: New variable opts.  Test caller3, caller4 and
  caller5 for l1, l2 and l3.  New prepare_for_testing.
  * gdb.base/store.c (wack_longest, wack_float, wack_double)
  (wack_doublest): Protect l and r by GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.
  * gdb.base/store.exp: New variable opts.  Test longest, float, double
  and doublest functions for l and r.  New prepare_for_testing.
  * gdb.trace/collection.c (reglocal_test_func): Protect locf and locd by
  GCC_PR_55056 #ifdef.  Protect locar by GDB_PR_15081 #ifdef.
  * gdb.trace/unavailable.c: Likewise.
  * gdb.trace/collection.exp: New variable opts.  Test reglocal_test_func
  for locf, locd and locar.  New prepare_for_testing.
  (gdb_collect_locals_test): Increase list size to 43.
  * gdb.trace/unavailable.exp: Likewise.
 
 As far as I can tell, no consensus has yet been reached about the
 approach to fix this issue discussed in this thread.  (I have not looked
 at the proposed patch in detail.)

I have found now I posted the testsuite workaround for GDB
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-01/msg00688.html
but it has never been checked-in (neither in Fedora) which explains why you
see PASS-FAIL (which I also see on Fedora 19).


Jan