"Jeff Law" <l...@redhat.com>:
>On 10/23/14 08:30, jb...@gmx.de wrote:
>> "Jeff Law" <l...@redhat.com>:
>>
>>> On 10/21/14 12:21, jb...@gmx.de wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Law" <l...@redhat.com>:
>>>>> On 10/21/14 16:13, Haswell wrote:
>>>>>> The additional source must have the same requirement
>>>>>> crossmodule-indircall-1.c has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * crossmodule-indircall-1a.c: Add missing requirement.
>>>>> Why? When used by crossmodule-indircall-1.c we'll have already tested
>>>>> the marker and when used by itself, it does nothing.
>>>>
>>>>> So I don't see why you think a marker is needed for this source file.
>>>>
>>>> When configuring --disable-lto it gets compiled twice:
>>>>
>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
>>>> -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution,
>>>> -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
>>>> -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>>> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution,
>>>> -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE
>>> I'd recommend looking deeper. I believe that file should be collapsing
>>> down to main () { return 0; } when LTO is not enabled.
>>
>> I'm not a dejagnu expert, but this is what happens:
>>
>> /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/
>> /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
>> -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never
>> /tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
>> -fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o
>> /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
>> /tmp/cc4rrWCn.o: In function `main':
>> crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'
>> /tmp/ccgMlXGi.o:crossmodule-indircall-1a.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>> compiler exited with status 1
>Thanks.
>What's weird here is the source file is listed twice on the command
>line! No wonder it's failing.
>I can't typically decipher tcl code without trace info and some
>send_user commands to see what the values of various things are.
>[...]
>Though I have no idea how that's expected to work in an LTO enabled compile.
With LTO enabled it runs just fine (which is the reason for the patch I
suggested):
spawn /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/
/tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -fprofile-generate
-D_PROFILE_GENERATE -lm -o
/tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x01
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE
spawn /tmp/build/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/build/gcc/
/tmp/gcc-4.9.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -fprofile-use
-D_PROFILE_USE -lm -o /tmp/build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/crossmodule-indircall-1a.x02
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c compilation, -fprofile-use
-D_PROFILE_USE
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1a.c execution, -fprofile-use
-D_PROFILE_USE
