On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 3:01 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 07:55:28AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > BTW, Qing Zhao's patch kit
> >   "[PATCH v4 0/3][RFC]Provide more contexts for -Warray-bounds and -
> > Wstringop-* warning messages"
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-January/673474.html
>
> I'm not sure we want that, that is just one of the many possibilities
> of showing up some reasoning why a misdesigned late warning has been
> emitted.
>
> > adds a usage of simple_diagnostic_path to OBJS via a new gcc/move-
> > history-rich-location.o in this patch:
> >   https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667615.html
>
> So what about at least for now something like the patch below, or
> perhaps export some extra substitutions for ENABLE_PLUGIN and CHECKING_P
> from configure and conditionalize this on plugins enabled and CHECKING_P
> disabled.
>
> This certainly fixes all the plugin.exp tests for --enable-checking=release.

That works for me (even unconditionally).

Richard.

> 2025-02-26  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>
>
>         PR testsuite/116143
>         * Makefile.in (EXTRA_BACKEND_OBJS): New variable.
>         (BACKEND): Use it before libbackend.a.
>
> --- gcc/Makefile.in.jj  2025-02-12 22:23:07.136772228 +0100
> +++ gcc/Makefile.in     2025-02-26 14:51:50.372704489 +0100
> @@ -1904,8 +1904,12 @@ ifeq (@enable_libgdiagnostics@,yes)
>  ALL_HOST_OBJS += $(libgdiagnostics_OBJS) $(SARIF_REPLAY_OBJS)
>  endif
>
> -BACKEND = libbackend.a main.o libcommon-target.a libcommon.a \
> -       $(CPPLIB) $(LIBDECNUMBER)
> +# libbackend.a objs that might not be in some cases linked into the compiler,
> +# yet they are supposed to be part of the plugin ABI.  See PR116143.
> +EXTRA_BACKEND_OBJS = simple-diagnostic-path.o lazy-diagnostic-path.o
> +
> +BACKEND = $(EXTRA_BACKEND_OBJS) libbackend.a main.o libcommon-target.a \
> +       libcommon.a $(CPPLIB) $(LIBDECNUMBER)
>
>  # This is defined to "yes" if Tree checking is enabled, which roughly means
>  # front-end checking.
>
>
>         Jakub
>

Reply via email to