Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc i386 test failures after commit ea2805f
Hello Ramsay, On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Ramsay Jones wrote: After commit ea2805f (shared libs: Build libtcc1.a with -fPIC, 02-04-2014), this now fails like so: Fixed with 2024c445. Indeed PIC input wasn't handled correctly in connection with -run (emitting a real ELF executable worked). So the testsuite is now back to the state before ea2805f, that is known VLA 5 fail in test1b and known bad pointer in strlen() in test3b. Ciao, Michael. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc i386 test failures after commit ea2805f
On 04/04/14 16:59, Michael Matz wrote: Hello Ramsay, On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Ramsay Jones wrote: After commit ea2805f (shared libs: Build libtcc1.a with -fPIC, 02-04-2014), this now fails like so: Fixed with 2024c445. Indeed PIC input wasn't handled correctly in connection with -run (emitting a real ELF executable worked). So the testsuite is now back to the state before ea2805f, that is known VLA 5 fail in test1b and known bad pointer in strlen() in test3b. Yep, I can confirm that it now fails in the old familiar way! :-P Thanks! (that was a fast response!). ATB, Ramsay Jones ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc i386 test failures after commit ea2805f
Indeed I did so on my repository
https://github.com/mingodad/tinycc/commit/74840e25b5d2bde099dbd3e7088cfef49bb172ce
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Domingo Alvarez Duarte
mingo...@gmail.comwrote:
I propose to remove bounds check from tests/build till we have a good
solution/implementation to it.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Ramsay Jones
ram...@ramsay1.demon.co.ukwrote:
Hi Michael,
tcc on i386 has been failing a couple of tests for a while.
For example, commit 3e56584 (Allow local redefinition of enumerator,
31-03-2014), fails like so:
$ make test
...
test1b
../tcc -B.. -I.. -I.. -I../include -b -run tcctest.c test.out1
--- test.ref 2014-04-03 20:09:19.207429405 +0100
+++ test.out1 2014-04-03 20:09:19.879432730 +0100
@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@
Test C99 VLA 2 (ptrs substract): PASSED
Test C99 VLA 3 (ptr add): PASSED
Test C99 VLA 4 (ptr access): PASSED
-Test C99 VLA 5 (bounds checking (might be disabled)): PASSED PASSED
PASSED PASSED PASSED PASSED PASSED PASSED
+Test C99 VLA 5 (bounds checking (might be disabled)): FAILED PASSED
FAILED PASSED FAILED PASSED FAILED PASSED
sizeof(int) = 4
sizeof(unsigned int) = 4
sizeof(long) = 4
make[1]: *** [test1b] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ramsay/tinycc/tests'
make: *** [test] Error 2
$
After commit ea2805f (shared libs: Build libtcc1.a with -fPIC,
02-04-2014),
this now fails like so:
$ make test
...
test1b
../tcc -B.. -I.. -I.. -I../include -b -run tcctest.c test.out1
Runtime error: dereferencing invalid pointer
at 0x9a6dc23 __bound_init()
Segmentation fault
make[1]: *** [test1b] Error 139
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ramsay/tinycc/tests'
make: *** [test] Error 2
$
Also, running 'make -k test', show other (bounds) tests failing in
a similar fashion (test3b and btest).
I don't have time to investigate this myself (sorry!).
HTH
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc i386 test failures after commit ea2805f
Hi, On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote: I propose to remove bounds check from tests/build till we have a good solution/implementation to it. Why should we? The checks are for features that are supposed to work. They did work once. They don't anymore. That's a regression. And the regression didn't happen because the testcase is invalid. So, I've probably broken something. Testcases can be disabled if there are known reasons why they currently can't possbily work. This is not one of the situations, the fails needs to be investigated first. Ramsay, thanks for the report, if nobody beats me, I'll look at details later the week. Probably something with how calls to internal functions are emitted. Ciao, Michael. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
