[rfa] store.exp failures

[rfa] store.exp failures

[David Carlton]

Whoops, I should have sent this to gdb-patches instead of gdb.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:42:51 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:30:54PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:

>> So, basically, it looks like some of the calls to the wack_XXX
>> functions are getting optimized out by the compiler, even though no
>> optimization flags are being passed.

> Make the function non-static and it should work as expected...

Good call.  Here's a patch, which cures my GCC 3.x problems (though
the two GCC 2.95 failures remain; I have no idea if they're our fault
or GCC's).  Is it okay to commit?

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

2002-12-05  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>

	* gdb.base/store.c: Don't declare functions static.

Index: store.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 store.c
--- store.c	5 Dec 2002 01:48:19 -0000	1.1
+++ store.c	5 Dec 2002 21:48:24 -0000
@@ -2,37 +2,42 @@
    in the target.  This pretty much relies on the compiler taking heed
    of requests for values to be stored in registers.  */
 
-static char
+/* NOTE: carlton/2002-12-05: These functions were all static, but for
+   whatever reason that caused GCC 3.1 to optimize away some of the
+   function calls within main even when no optimization flags were
+   passed.  */
+
+char
 add_char (register char u, register char v)
 {
   return u + v;
 }
 
-static short
+short
 add_short (register short u, register short v)
 {
   return u + v;
 }
 
-static int
+int
 add_int (register int u, register int v)
 {
   return u + v;
 }
 
-static long
+long
 add_long (register long u, register long v)
 {
   return u + v;
 }
 
-static float
+float
 add_float (register float u, register float v)
 {
   return u + v;
 }
 
-static double
+double
 add_double (register double u, register double v)
 {
   return u + v;
@@ -40,7 +45,7 @@ add_double (register double u, register 
 
 /* */
 
-static char
+char
 wack_char (register char u, register char v)
 {
   register char l = u;
@@ -48,7 +53,7 @@ wack_char (register char u, register cha
   return l;
 }
 
-static short
+short
 wack_short (register short u, register short v)
 {
   register short l = u;
@@ -56,7 +61,7 @@ wack_short (register short u, register s
   return l;
 }
 
-static int
+int
 wack_int (register int u, register int v)
 {
   register int l = u;
@@ -64,7 +69,7 @@ wack_int (register int u, register int v
   return l;
 }
 
-static long
+long
 wack_long (register long u, register long v)
 {
   register long l = u;
@@ -72,7 +77,7 @@ wack_long (register long u, register lon
   return l;
 }
 
-static float
+float
 wack_float (register float u, register float v)
 {
   register float l = u;
@@ -80,7 +85,7 @@ wack_float (register float u, register f
   return l;
 }
 
-static double
+double
 wack_double (register double u, register double v)
 {
   register double l = u;
@@ -93,7 +98,7 @@ struct s_2 { short s[2]; } z_2, s_2;
 struct s_3 { short s[3]; } z_3, s_3;
 struct s_4 { short s[4]; } z_4, s_4;
 
-static struct s_1
+struct s_1
 add_struct_1 (struct s_1 s)
 {
   int i;
@@ -104,7 +109,7 @@ add_struct_1 (struct s_1 s)
   return s;
 }
 
-static struct s_2
+struct s_2
 add_struct_2 (struct s_2 s)
 {
   int i;
@@ -115,7 +120,7 @@ add_struct_2 (struct s_2 s)
   return s;
 }
 
-static struct s_3
+struct s_3
 add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s)
 {
   int i;
@@ -126,7 +131,7 @@ add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s)
   return s;
 }
 
-static struct s_4
+struct s_4
 add_struct_4 (struct s_4 s)
 {
   int i;
@@ -137,7 +142,7 @@ add_struct_4 (struct s_4 s)
   return s;
 }
 
-static struct s_1
+struct s_1
 wack_struct_1 (void)
 {
   int i; register struct s_1 u = z_1;
@@ -146,7 +151,7 @@ wack_struct_1 (void)
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct s_2
+struct s_2
 wack_struct_2 (void)
 {
   int i; register struct s_2 u = z_2;
@@ -155,7 +160,7 @@ wack_struct_2 (void)
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct s_3
+struct s_3
 wack_struct_3 (void)
 {
   int i; register struct s_3 u = z_3;
@@ -164,7 +169,7 @@ wack_struct_3 (void)
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct s_4
+struct s_4
 wack_struct_4 (void)
 {
   int i; register struct s_4 u = z_4;
@@ -180,28 +185,28 @@ struct f_2 {unsigned i:2;unsigned j:2;un
 struct f_3 {unsigned i:3;unsigned j:3;unsigned k:3; } f_3 = {1,1,1}, F_3;
 struct f_4 {unsigned i:4;unsigned j:4;unsigned k:4; } f_4 = {1,1,1}, F_4;
 
-static struct f_1
+struct f_1
 wack_field_1 (void)
 {
   register struct f_1 u = f_1;
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct f_2
+struct f_2
 wack_field_2 (void)
 {
   register struct f_2 u = f_2;
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct f_3
+struct f_3
 wack_field_3 (void)
 {
   register struct f_3 u = f_3;
   return u;
 }
 
-static struct f_4
+struct f_4
 wack_field_4 (void)
 {
   register struct f_4 u = f_4;

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[Fernando Nasser]

David Carlton wrote:> Whoops, I should have sent this to gdb-patches instead of gdb.
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:42:51 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> 
>>On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:30:54PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> 
> 
>>>So, basically, it looks like some of the calls to the wack_XXX
>>>functions are getting optimized out by the compiler, even though no
>>>optimization flags are being passed.
>>
> 
>>Make the function non-static and it should work as expected...
> 
> 
> Good call.  Here's a patch, which cures my GCC 3.x problems (though
> the two GCC 2.95 failures remain; I have no idea if they're our fault
> or GCC's).  Is it okay to commit?
> 

I don't think not being static affects the goal of test at all, so if it fixes 
the problem I have no objection.

Fernando


> David Carlton
> carlton@math.stanford.edu
> 
> 2002-12-05  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
> 
> 	* gdb.base/store.c: Don't declare functions static.
> 
> Index: store.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -p -r1.1 store.c
> --- store.c	5 Dec 2002 01:48:19 -0000	1.1
> +++ store.c	5 Dec 2002 21:48:24 -0000
> @@ -2,37 +2,42 @@
>     in the target.  This pretty much relies on the compiler taking heed
>     of requests for values to be stored in registers.  */
>  
> -static char
> +/* NOTE: carlton/2002-12-05: These functions were all static, but for
> +   whatever reason that caused GCC 3.1 to optimize away some of the
> +   function calls within main even when no optimization flags were
> +   passed.  */
> +
> +char
>  add_char (register char u, register char v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
>  }
>  
> -static short
> +short
>  add_short (register short u, register short v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
>  }
>  
> -static int
> +int
>  add_int (register int u, register int v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
>  }
>  
> -static long
> +long
>  add_long (register long u, register long v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
>  }
>  
> -static float
> +float
>  add_float (register float u, register float v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
>  }
>  
> -static double
> +double
>  add_double (register double u, register double v)
>  {
>    return u + v;
> @@ -40,7 +45,7 @@ add_double (register double u, register 
>  
>  /* */
>  
> -static char
> +char
>  wack_char (register char u, register char v)
>  {
>    register char l = u;
> @@ -48,7 +53,7 @@ wack_char (register char u, register cha
>    return l;
>  }
>  
> -static short
> +short
>  wack_short (register short u, register short v)
>  {
>    register short l = u;
> @@ -56,7 +61,7 @@ wack_short (register short u, register s
>    return l;
>  }
>  
> -static int
> +int
>  wack_int (register int u, register int v)
>  {
>    register int l = u;
> @@ -64,7 +69,7 @@ wack_int (register int u, register int v
>    return l;
>  }
>  
> -static long
> +long
>  wack_long (register long u, register long v)
>  {
>    register long l = u;
> @@ -72,7 +77,7 @@ wack_long (register long u, register lon
>    return l;
>  }
>  
> -static float
> +float
>  wack_float (register float u, register float v)
>  {
>    register float l = u;
> @@ -80,7 +85,7 @@ wack_float (register float u, register f
>    return l;
>  }
>  
> -static double
> +double
>  wack_double (register double u, register double v)
>  {
>    register double l = u;
> @@ -93,7 +98,7 @@ struct s_2 { short s[2]; } z_2, s_2;
>  struct s_3 { short s[3]; } z_3, s_3;
>  struct s_4 { short s[4]; } z_4, s_4;
>  
> -static struct s_1
> +struct s_1
>  add_struct_1 (struct s_1 s)
>  {
>    int i;
> @@ -104,7 +109,7 @@ add_struct_1 (struct s_1 s)
>    return s;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_2
> +struct s_2
>  add_struct_2 (struct s_2 s)
>  {
>    int i;
> @@ -115,7 +120,7 @@ add_struct_2 (struct s_2 s)
>    return s;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_3
> +struct s_3
>  add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s)
>  {
>    int i;
> @@ -126,7 +131,7 @@ add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s)
>    return s;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_4
> +struct s_4
>  add_struct_4 (struct s_4 s)
>  {
>    int i;
> @@ -137,7 +142,7 @@ add_struct_4 (struct s_4 s)
>    return s;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_1
> +struct s_1
>  wack_struct_1 (void)
>  {
>    int i; register struct s_1 u = z_1;
> @@ -146,7 +151,7 @@ wack_struct_1 (void)
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_2
> +struct s_2
>  wack_struct_2 (void)
>  {
>    int i; register struct s_2 u = z_2;
> @@ -155,7 +160,7 @@ wack_struct_2 (void)
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_3
> +struct s_3
>  wack_struct_3 (void)
>  {
>    int i; register struct s_3 u = z_3;
> @@ -164,7 +169,7 @@ wack_struct_3 (void)
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct s_4
> +struct s_4
>  wack_struct_4 (void)
>  {
>    int i; register struct s_4 u = z_4;
> @@ -180,28 +185,28 @@ struct f_2 {unsigned i:2;unsigned j:2;un
>  struct f_3 {unsigned i:3;unsigned j:3;unsigned k:3; } f_3 = {1,1,1}, F_3;
>  struct f_4 {unsigned i:4;unsigned j:4;unsigned k:4; } f_4 = {1,1,1}, F_4;
>  
> -static struct f_1
> +struct f_1
>  wack_field_1 (void)
>  {
>    register struct f_1 u = f_1;
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct f_2
> +struct f_2
>  wack_field_2 (void)
>  {
>    register struct f_2 u = f_2;
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct f_3
> +struct f_3
>  wack_field_3 (void)
>  {
>    register struct f_3 u = f_3;
>    return u;
>  }
>  
> -static struct f_4
> +struct f_4
>  wack_field_4 (void)
>  {
>    register struct f_4 u = f_4;
> 



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[David Carlton]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:16:54 -0500, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> said:

> I don't think not being static affects the goal of test at all, so if
> it fixes the problem I have no objection.

Thanks, I've committed it.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:16:54 -0500, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>> I don't think not being static affects the goal of test at all, so if
>> it fixes the problem I have no objection.
> 
> 
> Thanks, I've committed it.

Thanks.  In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older 
compilers.  Now we get to see what bugs it flushes out ...

I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.

Andrew

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[David Carlton]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> Thanks.  In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older
> compilers.

Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way?
They're

FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2

I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault.  (Or even nobody's
fault: the test seems a bit delicate.)

> I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.

Yeah, I wondered about that, too: it's not going to make our lives any
easier if GCC continues doing this...

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>> Thanks.  In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older
>> compilers.
> 
> 
> Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way?
> They're
> 
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2
> 
> I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault.  (Or even nobody's
> fault: the test seems a bit delicate.)

On a powerpc:

Running /home/scratch/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

                 === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            204

ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
2.95.3

And on a Red Hat 7,2 system:

Running /home/cagney/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

                 === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            204

cagney@torrens$ gcc --version
2.96

>> I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wondered about that, too: it's not going to make our lives any
> easier if GCC continues doing this...

Asked a GCC engineer.  They agreed, at -O0, it shouldn't be eliminating 
static functions.

Andrew

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>> Thanks.  In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older
>> compilers.
> 
> 
> Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way?
> They're
> 
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2
> 
> I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault.  (Or even nobody's
> fault: the test seems a bit delicate.)

BTW, what makes you think the test is delicate?  The code is valid C and 
the command:

	(gdb) set variable u = s_1

is valid in GDB's CLI.  If it doesn't work, its a bug.

Andrew

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[David Carlton]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:55:34 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> On a powerpc:

> Running /home/scratch/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

>                  === gdb Summary ===

> # of expected passes            204

> ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
> 2.95.3

> And on a Red Hat 7,2 system:

> Running /home/cagney/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

>                  === gdb Summary ===

> # of expected passes            204

> cagney@torrens$ gcc --version
> 2.96

Yeah, 2.96 passes for me, too.  Who knows what's going on with
i686-gnu-linux 2.95.3, then.

> BTW, what makes you think the test is delicate?  The code is valid C
> and the command:

> 	(gdb) set variable u = s_1

> is valid in GDB's CLI.  If it doesn't work, its a bug.

Actually, I was misinterpreting the following comment at the top of
store.c:

/* Check that GDB can correctly update a value, living in a register,
   in the target.  This pretty much relies on the compiler taking heed
   of requests for values to be stored in registers.  */

But I suppose that, even if the compiler doesn't pay attention to
'register' requests, the tests should stil work fine, they just won't
test what they're supposed to.  So 'delicate' is definitely the wrong
word.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu