[Bug lto/77716] New: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c fails starting with r240228
seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Fri Sep 23 19:58:00 GMT 2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77716
Bug ID: 77716
Summary: [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c
fails starting with r240228
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
Target Milestone: ---
This fails on powerpc64 both BE and LE.
Executing on host: /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test2/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test2/gcc/
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O -gdwarf -dA -maltivec
-ffat-lto-objects -S -o const-2.s (timeout = 300)
spawn /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test2/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test2/gcc/
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O -gdwarf -dA -maltivec
-ffat-lto-objects -S -o const-2.s
PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/const-2.c scan-assembler DW_AT_const_value
16c16
< .4byte .LASF0 # DW_AT_producer: "GNU C11 7.0.0 20160919
(experimental) [trunk revision 240227] -Asystem=linux -Asystem=unix
-Asystem=posix -maltivec -gdwarf -O -ffat-lto-objects"
---
> .4byte .LASF0 # DW_AT_producer: "GNU C11 7.0.0 20160919 (experimental) [trunk revision 240228] -Asystem=linux -Asystem=unix -Asystem=posix -maltivec -gdwarf -O -ffat-lto-objects"
41,45d40
< .byte 0x10 # DW_AT_const_value
< .4byte 0x4d6e6b28 # fp or vector constant word 0
< .4byte 0 # fp or vector constant word 1
< .4byte 0 # fp or vector constant word 2
< .4byte 0 # fp or vector constant word 3
115,116d109
< .uleb128 0x1c # (DW_AT_const_value)
< .uleb128 0xa # (DW_FORM_block1)
This block is missing in the assembler output after the revision.
Hmmm. Perhaps it is related to this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77692
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list