[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-09 13:02:32 UTC --- Closing as fixed, thanks for the patch.
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-01-09 12:41:37 UTC --- Author: iains Date: Sun Jan 9 12:41:33 2011 New Revision: 168611 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168611 Log: PR gcc/46902 PR testsuite/46912 * plugin.c: Move include of dlfcn.h from here... * system.h: ... to here. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/plugin.c trunk/gcc/system.h
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe 2011-01-03 21:54:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:06 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > gcc/system.h : > > > > > # define bool unsigned char > > > > This is wrong. The solution is simple: > > > > #define bool _Bool > > > > on darwin. Arguably, this is correct for every non-broken system as well. > > We can't rely on GCC or C99 support. The correct fix is to define > bool to unsigned int for darwin then (and pay the space efficience loss > price). it is fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01361.html which either needs a global reviewer, or declaring to be obvious (Mike Stump reviewed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01425.html)
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-03 20:59:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:06 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > gcc/system.h : > > > # define bool unsigned char > > This is wrong. The solution is simple: > > #define bool _Bool > > on darwin. Arguably, this is correct for every non-broken system as well. We can't rely on GCC or C99 support. The correct fix is to define bool to unsigned int for darwin then (and pay the space efficience loss price). Richard.
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #5 from Mike Stump 2010-12-16 22:42:34 UTC --- On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:06 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > gcc/system.h : > # define bool unsigned char This is wrong. The solution is simple: #define bool _Bool on darwin. Arguably, this is correct for every non-broken system as well.
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-16 22:05:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > > it's all fall-out from the different assumed sizes of Bool (see also 46902). > > ? bool/_Bool is 4 on pcc. Making it any other size introduces a abi bug. > What code assumes _Bool is 1 byte? That would be the root cause that needs > fixing. Hm. I'm not sure where to go from here .. this touches everything. gcc/system.h : /* Provide a fake boolean type. We make no attempt to use the C99 _Bool, as it may not be available in the bootstrap compiler, and even if it is, it is liable to be buggy. This must be after all inclusion of system headers, as some of them will mess us up. */ #undef TRUE #undef FALSE #ifdef __cplusplus /* Obsolete. */ # define TRUE true # define FALSE false #else /* !__cplusplus */ # undef bool # undef true # undef false # define bool unsigned char # define true 1 # define false 0 /* Obsolete. */ # define TRUE true # define FALSE false #endif /* !__cplusplus */
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 --- Comment #3 from Mike Stump 2010-12-16 21:59:44 UTC --- > it's all fall-out from the different assumed sizes of Bool (see also 46902). ? bool/_Bool is 4 on pcc. Making it any other size introduces a abi bug. What code assumes _Bool is 1 byte? That would be the root cause that needs fixing. > I think (subject to Mike's agreement) that, since Darwin's does > not > set bool to int for GCC > 3 You're misreading it: $ cat t.c int sz = sizeof(_Bool); $ gcc -arch ppc t.c -S -o - .machine ppc7400 _sz: .long4 > .. that we should default to one byte bools on PPC darwin (there is no effect > on x86). No, that would be bad.
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 21:45:13 UTC --- it's all fall-out from the different assumed sizes of Bool (see also 46902). I think (subject to Mike's agreement) that, since Darwin's does not set bool to int for GCC > 3 ... that we should default to one byte bools on PPC darwin (there is no effect on x86). Index: gcc/config/darwin.opt === --- gcc/config/darwin.opt (revision 167812) +++ gcc/config/darwin.opt (working copy) @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ Target Joined Report Var(darwin_macosx_version_min The earliest MacOS X version on which this program will run mone-byte-bool -Target RejectNegative Report Var(darwin_one_byte_bool) +Target RejectNegative Report Var(darwin_one_byte_bool) Init(1) Set sizeof(bool) to 1 fapple-kext
[Bug testsuite/46912] [4.6 Regression] Test failures for g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2010.12.13 08:25:45 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-13 08:25:45 UTC --- this problem is revealed by my commit of: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00188.html However, it is _not_ caused by it (the plugins were not being built before owing to the clash between -mdynamic-no-pic and -fPIC). The problem in the failing test-cases is that the plugin (which built without flagging faults) does not load. The plugin does not load because it fails to resolve symbols (IIRC, they are related to the warning subsystem). Another oddity is that (last time I tried) the faults do not manifest when the compiler is bootstrapped with cxx -- implying that the issue might be related to name mangling or headers.
