https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89812

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The test is broken in multiple ways.  The long long diagnostics can be fixed
e.g. through adding { dg-options "" }, but there is more serious problem that
the test hardcodes the 1 << 28 MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT, which is only one of many
possible values:
defaults.h:#ifndef MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT
defaults.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT
config/alpha/vms.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 524288  /* 8 x 2^16 by DEC Ada
Test CD40VRA */
config/microblaze/microblaze.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT             
(32768*8)
config/avr/elf.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (32768 * 8)
config/i386/xm-djgpp.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 128
config/i386/cygming.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (8192 * 8)
config/ia64/vms.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 524288  /* 8 x 2^16 by DEC Ada
Test CD40VRA */
config/pa/elf.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (32768 * 8)
config/pa/som.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 32768
config/pa/pa64-hpux.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 32768
config/darwin.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (0x8000 * 8)
config/nvptx/nvptx.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (32768 * 8)
config/mmix/mmix.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (32768 * 8)
config/elfos.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT (((unsigned int) 1 << 28) * 8)
config/rs6000/xcoff.h:#define MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT 32768

We don't have an ELF effective target but I think even all ELF targets don't
actually use the 1 << 28 even when ignoring the above clearly visible AVR case
- any ELF target that doesn't use elfos.h and rolls stuff on its own and not
listed above will use BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, which is most likely not 1 << 28.

So, I think we just need to limit the test to a couple of most common targets
with 1 << 28 max ofile alignment.

Reply via email to