So, I was hoping that someone would step forward and review this. I’d like for
a reviewer to consider, is this the type of error messages we want to vend to
the poor user? It strikes me as, well, icky. Should -fPIE imply -fPIC?
Exclusive of that issue, the patch is fine.
On Jan 11, 2015, at 4:23 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> g++.dg/other/anon5.C is expected to fail to link. On Linux/x86 with PIE,
> there are additional messages linker:
>
> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$ g++ -fPIE -pie
> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C
> /tmp/ccwg53fj.o: In function `f()': anon5.C:(.text+0x7): undefined reference
> to `(anonymous namespace)::c::t'
> /usr/local/bin/ld: /tmp/ccwg53fj.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against
> undefined symbol `_ZN12_GLOBAL__N_11c1tE' can not be used when making a
> shared object; recompile with -fPIC
> /usr/local/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$
>
> This patch ignores additional messages on Linux/x86 with PIE. OK for
> trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
> H.J.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> 2015-01-11 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
>
> * g++.dg/other/anon5.C: Ignore additional messages on Linux/x86
> with PIE.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C
> index 81e9def..4e4cc44 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/other/anon5.C
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
> // { dg-options "-g" }
> // Ignore additional message on powerpc-ibm-aix
> // { dg-prune-output "obtain more information" } */
> +// Ignore additional messages on Linux/x86 with PIE
> +// { dg-prune-output "Bad value" } */
>
> namespace {
> struct c
