On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 11:02 AM Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > > Ping? It's been a week: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/679330.html > > > Three tests FAIL on Solaris/x86 in similar ways: > > > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr111673.c check-function-bodies advance > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr82142a.c check-function-bodies assignzero > > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr82142b.c check-function-bodies assignzero > > > > All tests FAIL as is because they lack either or both of the .LFB0 label > > and the .cfi_startproc directive: > > > > * The 32-bit pr82142b.c test lacks both, whether as or gas is in use: as > > lacks full support for the cfi directives and the .LSB0 label is only > > emitted with -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. > > > > * The 64-bit tests pr111673.c and pr82142a.c already work with gas, but > > with as the cfi directives are again missing. > > > > In addition, the 32-bit test (pr82142b.c) still FAILs because 32-bit > > Solaris/x86 defaults to -mstackrealign. > > > > To fix all this, this patch adds -fasynchronous-unwind-tables > > -fdwarf2-cfi-asm to all tests to force the generation of both the .LFB0 > > label and .cfi_startproc (which is ok since they are compile tests). In > > addition, pr82142b.c is compiled with -mno-stackrealign to avoid > > platform differences. > > > > I'm a bit uncertain if we want to force all those options > > unconditionally, though they don't cause harm. One might only add them > > for Solaris via dg-additional-options and/or require cfi support instead? > > > > Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > > > Ok for trunk?
OK, adding these options is an established practice to fix Solaris fallout. Thanks, Uros.
