GCC Bugzilla – Bug 16820
Failure of all gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 tests
Last modified: 2004-10-15 17:13:02 UTC
Running /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/compat.exp ... FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile Running /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp .. . FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_y_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_y_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_y_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t004 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t004 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t004 c_compat_y_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t005 c_compat_main_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t005 c_compat_x_tst.o compile FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t005 c_compat_y_tst.o compile ... 2004-07-24 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> * README.compat: Add RUN_ALL_COMPAT_TESTS documentation. * lib/compat.exp: Replace ^$tmpdir/? in testcase names with tmpdir-. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp: New testsuite driver. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c: New testcase generator. * gcc.dg/compat/generate-random.c: New file. * gcc.dg/compat/generate-random.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/generate-random_r.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_x1.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_x2.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_y1.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_y2.h: Likewise. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_main.c: New test. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_x.c: New file. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_y.c: New file. * gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_test.h: New file. The fails are all caused by the lack of the header files <complex.h> and <stdint.h> on non C99 systems: Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/ gcc/ -c -o c_compat_main_tst.o /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/co mpat/struct-layout-1_main.c (timeout = 300) In file included from /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-l ayout-1_main.c:1: /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.h:1:21: comple x.h: No such file or directory /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.h:6:20: stdint .h: No such file or directory The <stdint.h> C99 issues are documented in PR 448 <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448>. We need a way to xfail these tests until the C99 issues are resolved.
I agree that the issue is minor but I think we need a policy here, or else we will soon have thousands of testsuite failures on non C99 targets. The onus should not be on the backend maintainers to work out xfail code for testsuite additions that require C99 library and header support on a case-by-case basis. There needs to be something like a "c99_available" proc in target-supports.exp.
Subject: Re: Failure of all gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 tests danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-30 02:33 ------- >I agree that the issue is minor but I think we need a policy here, or >else we will soon have thousands of testsuite failures on non C99 >targets. The onus should not be on the backend maintainers >to work out xfail code for testsuite additions that require C99 library >and header support on a case-by-case basis. There needs to be >something like a "c99_available" proc in target-supports.exp. > > I very much agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg02654.html
Fixed.