This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite] Fix dump-noaddr dumpbase
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Thomas Preudhomme <thomas dot preudhomme at foss dot arm dot com>, Rainer Orth <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:24:53 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite] Fix dump-noaddr dumpbase
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <eb22aac6-891c-7c92-896d-831ccdc12047@foss.arm.com> <CA+=Sn1=TPkVh_oRvQJg-ntBHr5o_2bR1UyKirM7=e=y9-xkbng@mail.gmail.com>
On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Preudhomme
> <thomas.preudhomme@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> dump-noaddr test FAILS when $tmpdir is not the same as the directory
>> where runtest is called from. Note that this does not happen when
>> running make check because tmpdir is set to srcdir.
>>
>> In that case, file mkdir will create the directory in the current
>> directory while GCC is invoked from tmpdir and hence -dumpbase look
>> for dump1 and dump2 relative to tmpdir. This patch forces dumpbase to
>> be relative to tmpdir which will work in all case.
>>
>> ChangeLog entry is as follows:
>>
>> *** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ***
>>
>> 2017-12-05 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
>>
>> * gcc.c-torture/unsorted/dump-noaddr.x (dump_compare): Set dump base
>> relative to tmpdir.
>>
>> Testing: Successfully ran unsorted.exp via make check and out of tree
>> testing using runtest from <path>/test with tmpdir set in
>> <path>/test/site.exp to <path>.
>>
>> Is this ok for stage3?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01752.html
> I don't remember where this discussion went last time.
I approved his patch last time in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01752.html
I've not seen anyone argue against it.
> Maybe this time there will be a resolution :).
A resolution would be for someone to check in the approved patch, or ask for it to be installed. :-o
I've checked it in. It might not work for canadian crosses, but we can punt that to the next poor soul.
Give it a try and let us know if that cures the problem. Feel free to just fix it, if you notice anything wrong. I'm thinking it will cure all the problems people have seen.