Michael, Your commit: http://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/blobdiff/cd9514abc4f4d7d90acce108b98ea2af58a1b8 0a..77d7ea04acb56f839031993c102366e30cad5c25:/tests/tests2/Makefile
Is the source of this error Test: 42_function_pointer... --- ../../tests/tests2/42_function_pointer.expect 2017-02-11 11:51:38.535657127 +0100 +++ 42_function_pointer.output 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +0,0 @@ -yo 24 -42 Makefile:54: recipe for target '42_function_pointer.test' failed make[2]: *** [42_function_pointer.test] Error 1 at least on RPi -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Christian Jullien Sent: samedi 11 février 2017 11:40 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Ready for Release 0.9.27 About test 42 Comparing by hand the 42_function_pointer output and 42_function_pointer expect files I see no different Investigating further, I see in tests2/Makefile # And some tests don't test the right thing with -run NORUN = 42_function_pointer.test : NORUN = true If I comment this line, it makes happy the whole test suite on RPi. I've to idea why someone added this trick which is used there: %.test: %.c %.expect @echo Test: $*... # test -run @if test -z "$(NORUN)"; then \ $(TCC) -run $< $(ARGS) $(FILTER) >$*.output 2>&1 || true; \ else \ $(TCC) $< -o ./$*.exe $(FILTER) 2>&1 && \ ./$*.exe $(ARGS) >$*.output 2>&1 || true; \ fi @diff -Nbu $(SRC)/$*.expect $*.output && rm -f $*.output $*.exe Any clue? -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Christian Jullien Sent: samedi 11 février 2017 10:56 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Ready for Release 0.9.27 Thanks for your fix, now the only remaining issue on RPi is: Test: 42_function_pointer... --- ../../tests/tests2/42_function_pointer.expect 2017-02-11 10:52:22.626094358 +0100 +++ 42_function_pointer.output 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +0,0 @@ -yo 24 -42 Makefile:54: recipe for target '42_function_pointer.test' failed I'll try to investigate this one too... -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: samedi 11 février 2017 09:48 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Ready for Release 0.9.27 Christian Jullien wrote: > Hi Grischka, > > The culprit commit is "2016-12-20 grischka tests: OOT build fixes etc." > Sorry Grischka :o) > > This is the first commit after which " Segmentation fault' appears. > > More specifically, the issue is with lib/Makefile, if I revert only > this file, seg. Fault is gone. > Don't ask me why, but adding again: > > PICFLAGS = -fPIC Great, thanks. I think it was just the former comment why -fPIC was needed ("for linking into shared libraries") which was confusing. After all neither is tcc generating PIC code for shared libraries nor do we support building shared libraries on ARM at all. Anyway, I fixed it. Now, I suppose that all tests are OK. Except maybe "42_function_pointer" on ARM64 and possibly ARM? The question for still failing tests then would be: Did they work originally and were broken later (and if so by which commit) or did they never work on that platform. Thanks, --- grischka > > ... > > XFLAGS = $(TGT) $(PICFLAGS) > ifeq "$(XCC)" "$(CC)" > XFLAGS += $(CFLAGS) > endif > > Is enough. > > I'm not sure if PICFLAGS should be globally set or inside the ifeq section. > I let you deicde. > > Christian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tinycc-devel > [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] > On Behalf Of grischka > Sent: vendredi 10 février 2017 09:11 > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Ready for Release 0.9.27 > > Christian Jullien wrote: >> Here is the complete log I get this morning with current mob and > especially ... >> make[1]: *** [abitest] Segmentation fault > >> ------------ test3 ------------ >> ../tcc -B.. -I../include -I.. -I.. > -DCONFIG_TRIPLET="\"arm-linux-gnueabihf\"" ... >> Segmentation fault > > I think we first need to find the cause of these crashes on ARM with -run. > Can you investigate that, eventually ? > > Thanks, > > -- grischka > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
