Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 52666 bytes --]

Hello,

Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:

	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ git rev-parse HEAD
	958c11c35d98417eb6b948bffe2dffed14eb3320
	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ uname -a
	Linux plummer 4.9.0-3-powerpc64le #1 SMP Debian 4.9.30-2+deb9u3 (2017-08-06) ppc64le GNU/Linux
	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ make check V=1
	cd validation && ./test-suite
	     TEST    Woverride-init-def (Woverride-init-def.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse Woverride-init-def.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Woverride-init-no (Woverride-init-no.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-override-init Woverride-init-no.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Woverride-init-yes (Woverride-init-yes.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Woverride-init Woverride-init-yes.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    warn-unknown-attribute (Wunknown-attribute-def.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse Wunknown-attribute-def.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    warn-unknown-attribute-no (Wunknown-attribute-no.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-unknown-attribute Wunknown-attribute-no.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    warn-unknown-attribute-yes (Wunknown-attribute-yes.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wunknown-attribute Wunknown-attribute-yes.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __func__ (__func__.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wall __func__.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    abstract array declarator static (abstract-array-declarator-static.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse abstract-array-declarator-static.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    address_space attribute (address_space.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse address_space.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    alias distinct symbols (alias-distinct.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize alias-distinct.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    alias symbol/pointer (alias-mixed.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize alias-mixed.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    alias same symbols (alias-same.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize alias-same.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute __alloc_align__ (alloc-align.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse alloc-align.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    alternate keywords (alternate-keywords.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse alternate-keywords.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    test anonymous union initializer (anon-union.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse anon-union.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Asm with goto labels. (asm-empty-clobber.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse asm-empty-clobber.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Asm with goto labels. (asm-goto-lables.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse asm-goto-lables.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    asm-toplevel.c (asm-toplevel.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize asm-toplevel.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    inline attributes (attr-inline.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr-inline.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute no_sanitize_address (attr-no_sanitize_address.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr-no_sanitize_address.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute noclone (attr-noclone.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr-noclone.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    optimize attributes (attr-optimize.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr-optimize.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute warning (attr-warning.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr-warning.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute assume_aligned (attr_aligned.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr_aligned.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute after ( in direct-declarator (attr_in_parameter.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr_in_parameter.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    attribute vector_size (attr_vector_size.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse attr_vector_size.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Arithmetic operator code generation (backend/arithmetic-ops.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/arithmetic-ops.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:05.100096386 +0000
	+++ backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:05.096096330 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
	+{standard input}: Assembler messages:
	+{standard input}:38: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsaddsp'
	+{standard input}:52: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsadddp'
	+{standard input}:94: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xssubsp'
	+{standard input}:108: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xssubdp'
	+{standard input}:150: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsmulsp'
	+{standard input}:164: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsmuldp'
	+{standard input}:206: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsdivsp'
	+{standard input}:220: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsdivdp'
	+mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.RyRzUr.o': No such file or directory
	     TEST    Array code generation (backend/array.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/array.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Bitwise operator code generation (backend/bitwise-ops.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/bitwise-ops.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Boolean type code generation (backend/bool-test.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/bool-test.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Cast code generation (backend/cast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/cast.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Comparison operator code generation (backend/cmp-ops.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/cmp-ops.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see backend/cmp-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- backend/cmp-ops.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:05.392100473 +0000
	+++ backend/cmp-ops.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:05.384100361 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
	+{standard input}: Assembler messages:
	+{standard input}:13: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:29: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:46: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:63: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:79: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:95: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:112: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:129: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:145: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:161: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:178: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:194: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:211: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:228: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:245: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:262: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.ui73QJ.o': No such file or directory
	     TEST    Extern symbol code generation (backend/extern.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/extern.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Function pointer code generation (backend/function-ptr.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/function-ptr.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    'hello, world' code generation (backend/hello.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/hello.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see backend/hello.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- backend/hello.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:05.528102376 +0000
	+++ backend/hello.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:05.496101928 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1 @@
	+/usr/include/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/gnu/stubs.h:8:12: error: unable to open 'gnu/stubs-32.h'
	     TEST    Non-bool condition values in branch/select (backend/int-cond.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/int-cond.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see backend/int-cond.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- backend/int-cond.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:05.576103048 +0000
	+++ backend/int-cond.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:05.572102992 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
	+{standard input}: Assembler messages:
	+{standard input}:11: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:26: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.M5YFeP.o': No such file or directory
	     TEST    Type of loaded objects (backend/load-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/load-type.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Logical operator code generation (backend/logical-ops.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/logical-ops.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see backend/logical-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- backend/logical-ops.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:05.668104336 +0000
	+++ backend/logical-ops.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:05.664104280 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
	+{standard input}: Assembler messages:
	+{standard input}:14: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+{standard input}:32: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
	+mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.gKQ3me.o': No such file or directory
	     TEST    Loops (backend/loop.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/loop.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Loops with unused counter (backend/loop2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/loop2.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Pointer cast code generation (backend/ptrcast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/ptrcast.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Type of stored objects (backend/store-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/store-type.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    struct access code generation (backend/struct-access.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/struct-access.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Struct code generation (backend/struct.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/struct.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    sum from 1 to n (backend/sum.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsei backend/sum.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Union code generation (backend/union.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/union.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    void return type code generation (backend/void-return-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c backend/void-return-type.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Bad array designated initializer (bad-array-designated-initializer.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bad-array-designated-initializer.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bad assignment (bad-assignment.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bad-assignment.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Bad cast syntax (bad-cast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bad-cast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Bad ternary syntax (bad-ternary-cond.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bad-ternary-cond.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Bad typeof syntax segfault (bad-typeof.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bad-typeof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    enum not in scope (badtype1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse badtype1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see badtype1.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- badtype1.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:06.144110998 +0000
	+++ badtype1.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:06.140110942 +0000
	@@ -1 +0,0 @@
	-badtype1.c:1:22: warning: bad scope for 'enum bar'
	info: test 'badtype1.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    missing type (badtype2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse badtype2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    missing type in argument list (badtype3.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse badtype3.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    switch(bad_type) {...} segfault (badtype4.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse badtype4.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    badtype5.c (badtype5.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse badtype5.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    binary constant (binary-constant.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse binary-constant.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bitfield size (bitfield-size.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl bitfield-size.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bitfield to integer promotion (bitfields.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bitfields.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    conversions to bitwise types (bitwise-cast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wbitwise bitwise-cast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    sizeof(bool array) (bool-array.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-sizeof-bool bool-array.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-cast-bad.c (bool-cast-bad.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bool-cast-bad.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-cast-explicit (bool-cast-explicit.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -m64 bool-cast-explicit.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-cast-implicit (bool-cast-implicit.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -m64 bool-cast-implicit.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-cast-restricted.c (bool-cast-restricted.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl bool-cast-restricted.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    constant folding in bswap builtins (bswap-constant-folding.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bswap-constant-folding.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    inlining switch statement (bug_inline_switch.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse bug_inline_switch.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    builtin-args-checking (builtin-args-checking.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin-args-checking.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    builtin-bswap-constant (builtin-bswap-constant.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize builtin-bswap-constant.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    builtin-bswap (builtin-bswap-variable.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize builtin-bswap-variable.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_atomic (builtin_atomic.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_atomic.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_bswap (builtin_bswap.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_bswap.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin INFINITY / nan() (builtin_inf.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_inf.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_safe (builtin_safe1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_safe1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_unreachable() (builtin_unreachable.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_unreachable.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_va_arg_pack() (builtin_va_arg_pack.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse builtin_va_arg_pack.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    c11-alignas (c11-alignas.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -std=c11 c11-alignas.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    c11-alignof (c11-alignof.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -std=c11 c11-alignof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    c11-noreturn (c11-noreturn.c)
		Using command       : ../test-parsing -std=c11 c11-noreturn.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    c11-stdc-version (c11-stdc-version.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E -std=c11 c11-stdc-version.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    c11-thread-local (c11-thread-local.c)
		Using command       : ../test-parsing -std=c11 c11-thread-local.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    C99 for-loop declarations (c99-for-loop-decl.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse c99-for-loop-decl.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    C99 for loop variable declaration (c99-for-loop.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize c99-for-loop.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Calling convention attributes (calling-convention-attributes.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse calling-convention-attributes.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cast-constant-to-float (cast-constant-to-float.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl cast-constant-to-float.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cast-constants.c (cast-constants.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -m64 cast-constants.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cast-kinds (cast-kinds.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -m64 cast-kinds.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Segfault in check_byte_count after syntax error (check_byte_count-ice.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse check_byte_count-ice.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    choose expr builtin (choose_expr.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse choose_expr.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Comma and array decay (comma.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse comma.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Compare null pointer constant to int (compare-null-to-int.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse compare-null-to-int.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    compound-assign-type (compound-assign-type.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -m64 compound-assign-type.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cond-address-array.c (cond-address-array.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl -Waddress cond-address-array.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cond-address-function (cond-address-function.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl -Waddress cond-address-function.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cond-address.c (cond-address.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl cond-address.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cond-err-expand.c (cond-err-expand.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl cond-err-expand.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Two-argument conditional expression types (cond_expr.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse cond_expr.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    type of conditional expression (cond_expr2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse cond_expr2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    result type of relational and logical operators (cond_expr3.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse cond_expr3.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    conditional-type (conditional-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse conditional-type.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    address of static object's member constness verification. (constexpr-addr-of-static-member.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-addr-of-static-member.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    address of static object constness verification. (constexpr-addr-of-static.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-addr-of-static.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Expression constness propagation in binops and alike (constexpr-binop.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-binop.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Expression constness propagation in casts (constexpr-cast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-cast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    compound literal address constness verification (constexpr-compound-literal.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-compound-literal.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Expression constness propagation in conditional expressions (constexpr-conditional.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-conditional.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    static storage object initializer constness verification. (constexpr-init.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-init.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    label reference constness verification. (constexpr-labelref.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-labelref.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_offsetof() constness verification. (constexpr-offsetof.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-offsetof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    pointer arithmetic constness verification. (constexpr-pointer-arith.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-pointer-arith.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    integer literal cast to pointer type constness verification. (constexpr-pointer-cast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-pointer-cast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Expression constness propagation in preops (constexpr-preop.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-preop.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    constness of pure/const builtins (constexpr-pure-builtin.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-pure-builtin.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    string literal constness verification. (constexpr-string.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wconstexpr-not-const constexpr-string.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __builtin_types_compatible_p() constness verification. (constexpr-types-compatible-p.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse constexpr-types-compatible-p.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Check -Wcontext (context.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse context.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crash add-doms (crash-add-doms.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize crash-add-doms.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crash bb_target (crash-bb_target.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize crash-bb_target.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crash ep->active (crash-ep-active.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize crash-ep-active.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crash ptrlist (crash-ptrlist.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize crash-ptrlist.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crash rewrite_branch (crash-rewrite-branch.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize crash-rewrite-branch.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crazy02-not-so.c (crazy02-not-so.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl crazy02-not-so.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    crazy03.c (crazy03.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse crazy03.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    declaration after statement (ANSI) (declaration-after-statement-ansi.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -ansi declaration-after-statement-ansi.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    declaration after statement (C89) (declaration-after-statement-c89.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -std=c89 declaration-after-statement-c89.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    declaration after statement (C99) (declaration-after-statement-c99.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -std=c99 declaration-after-statement-c99.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    declaration after statement (default) (declaration-after-statement-default.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse declaration-after-statement-default.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    finding definitions (definitions.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse definitions.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    designated_init attribute (designated-init.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse designated-init.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    discarded-label-statement (discarded-label-statement.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize discarded-label-statement.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    division constants (div.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse div.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Double semicolon in struct (double-semicolon.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse double-semicolon.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Dubious bitwise operation on !x (dubious-bitwise-with-not.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse dubious-bitwise-with-not.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    endian-big.c (endian-big.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -mbig-endian endian-big.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    endian-little.c (endian-little.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -mlittle-endian endian-little.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    enum-mismatch (enum-mismatch.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wenum-mismatch enum-mismatch.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    enumeration constants' scope [6.2.1p7] (enum_scope.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse enum_scope.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Character escape sequences (escapes.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse escapes.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    duplicate extern array (extern-array.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse extern-array.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    extern inline function (extern-inline.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse extern-inline.c extern-inline.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    field overlap (field-overlap.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse field-overlap.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    field-override (field-override.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Woverride-init -Woverride-init-all field-override.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Forced function argument type. (fored_arg.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse fored_arg.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    foul bitwise (foul-bitwise.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse foul-bitwise.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    fp-vs-ptrcast (fp-vs-ptrcast.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl fp-vs-ptrcast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Function pointer inheritance (function-pointer-inheritance.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse function-pointer-inheritance.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    function-redecl (function-redecl.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse function-redecl.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    goto labels (goto-label.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse goto-label.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    identifier-list parsing (identifier_list.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse identifier_list.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    implicit-ret-type.c (implicit-ret-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl implicit-ret-type.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    implicit-type.c (implicit-type.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl implicit-type.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    internal infinite loop (0) (infinite-loop0.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl infinite-loop0.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    infinite loop 02 (infinite-loop02.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl infinite-loop02.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    infinite loop 03 (infinite-loop03.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl infinite-loop03.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    char array initializers (init-char-array.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse init-char-array.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    parenthesized string initializer (init-char-array1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wparen-string init-char-array1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    -Winit-cstring option (init_cstring.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Winit-cstring init_cstring.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Initializer entry defined twice (initializer-entry-defined-twice.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse initializer-entry-defined-twice.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    inline compound literals (inline_compound_literals.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse inline_compound_literals.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    int128 (int128.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize int128.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Integer promotions (integer-promotions.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse integer-promotions.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    integer constant & conditional expression (ioc-typecheck.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse ioc-typecheck.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see ioc-typecheck.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- ioc-typecheck.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:07.552130702 +0000
	+++ ioc-typecheck.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:07.548130646 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1 @@
	+ioc-typecheck.c:3:16: error: bad integer constant expression
	info: test 'ioc-typecheck.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    kill-casts (kill-casts.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-casts.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-computedgoto (kill-computedgoto.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-computedgoto.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-cse (kill-cse.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-cse.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill insert-branch (kill-insert-branch.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-insert-branch.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-load (kill-load.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-load.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-phi-node (kill-phi-node.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-phi-node.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-phi-ttsbb (kill-phi-ttsbb.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-phi-ttsbb.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-phi-ttsbb2 (kill-phi-ttsbb2.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-phi-ttsbb2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-phisrc (kill-phisrc.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-phisrc.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-pure-call (kill-pure-call.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-pure-call.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-replaced-insn (kill-replaced-insn.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-replaced-insn.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-rewritten-load (kill-rewritten-load.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-rewritten-load.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-select (kill-select.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize kill-select.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-slice (kill-slice.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-slice.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-store (kill-store.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl kill-store.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    kill-unreachable-phi (kill-unreachable-phi.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse kill-unreachable-phi.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Label followed by __asm__ (label-asm.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse label-asm.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Label attribute (label-attr.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse label-attr.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    label-expr (label-expr.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize label-expr.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __label__ scope (label-scope.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse label-scope.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bitfield initializer mask (linear/bitfield-init-mask.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -fdump-linearize=only -Wno-decl linear/bitfield-init-mask.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bitfield implicit init zero (linear/bitfield-init-zero.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl linear/bitfield-init-zero.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    missing instruction's size (linear/missing-insn-size.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize linear/missing-insn-size.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    struct implicit init zero not needed (linear/struct-init-full.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl linear/struct-init-full.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual output text does not match expected output text.
	error: see linear/struct-init-full.c.output.* for further investigation.
	--- linear/struct-init-full.c.output.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:07.888135404 +0000
	+++ linear/struct-init-full.c.output.got	2017-08-30 16:02:07.884135348 +0000
	@@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
	 s_init_all:
	-.L4:
	+.L0:
		<entry-point>
	+	store.96    $0 -> 0[s]
		store.32    %arg1 -> 0[s]
		store.32    $42 -> 4[s]
		store.32    $123 -> 8[s]
	-	load.96     %r8 <- 0[s]
	-	ret.96      %r8
	+	load.96     %r2 <- 0[s]
	+	ret.96      %r2
	 
	 
	info: test 'linear/struct-init-full.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    struct implicit init zero needed (linear/struct-init-partial.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl linear/struct-init-partial.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Local label (local-label.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse local-label.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Logical and/or (logical.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse logical.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    loop-linearization (loop-linearization.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize loop-linearization.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Expansion of typeof when dealing with member of struct (member_of_typeof.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse member_of_typeof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    memops-volatile (memops-volatile.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize memops-volatile.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    handling of identifier-less declarations (missing-ident.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse missing-ident.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typedefs with many declarators (multi_typedef.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse multi_typedef.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    nested declarator vs. parameters (nested-declarator.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse nested-declarator.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    more on handling of ( in direct-declarator (nested-declarator2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse nested-declarator2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    nocast.c (nocast.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse nocast.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    noderef attribute (noderef.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse noderef.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Using plain integer as NULL pointer (non-pointer-null.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse non-pointer-null.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Old initializer with -Wno-old-initializer (old-initializer-nowarn.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-old-initializer
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Old initializer (old-initializer.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse old-initializer.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    double-unop (optim/binops-same-args.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/binops-same-args.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-context (optim/bool-context.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/bool-context.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-same-args (optim/bool-same-args.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/bool-same-args.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    bool-simplify (optim/bool-simplify.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/bool-simplify.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cse-commutativity (optim/cse-commutativity.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/cse-commutativity.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    cse-dual-compare (optim/cse-dual-compare.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/cse-dual-compare.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: Actual output contains some patterns which are not expected.
	info: test 'optim/cse-dual-compare.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    double-unop (optim/double-unop.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/double-unop.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    fpcast-nop (optim/fpcast-nop.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/fpcast-nop.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    muldiv-by-one (optim/muldiv-by-one.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/muldiv-by-one.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    muldiv-by-zero (optim/muldiv-by-zero.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/muldiv-by-zero.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    muldiv-minus-one (optim/muldiv-minus-one.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/muldiv-minus-one.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    optim/setcc-setcc (optim/setcc-setcc.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/setcc-setcc.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    optim/setcc-seteq (optim/setcc-seteq.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/setcc-seteq.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    optim/setcc-setne (optim/setcc-setne.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize optim/setcc-setne.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Ignore VOID in if-convert (optim/void-if-convert.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl optim/void-if-convert.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    There is no scope boundary between global and file scope (outer-scope.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -include outer-scope.c outer-scope.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    #pragma once (pragma-once.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse pragma-once.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __COUNTER__ #1 (preprocessor/counter1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/counter1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __COUNTER__ #2 (preprocessor/counter2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Ipreprocessor -E preprocessor/counter2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    __COUNTER__ #3 (preprocessor/counter3.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Ipreprocessor -E preprocessor/counter1.c preprocessor/counter3.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    dump-macros with empty file (preprocessor/dump-macros-empty.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E -dD empty-file
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    dump-macros with multiple files (preprocessor/dump-macros-multi.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E -dD empty-file preprocessor/dump-macros-multi.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    dump-macros (preprocessor/dump-macros.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E -dD -DIJK=ijk -UNDEF -UNYDEF preprocessor/dump-macros.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    early-escape (preprocessor/early-escape.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/early-escape.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    predefined __<type>_BIT__ (preprocessor/predef-char-bit.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl preprocessor/predef-char-bit.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    predefined __<type>_MAX__ (preprocessor/predef-max.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl preprocessor/predef-max.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    predefined __SIZEOF_<type>__ (preprocessor/predef-sizeof.c)
		Using command       : ../test-linearize -Wno-decl preprocessor/predef-sizeof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #1 (preprocessor/preprocessor1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #10 (preprocessor/preprocessor10.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor10.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #11 (preprocessor/preprocessor11.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor11.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #12 (preprocessor/preprocessor12.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor12.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #13 (preprocessor/preprocessor13.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor13.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #14 (preprocessor/preprocessor14.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor14.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #15 (preprocessor/preprocessor15.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor15.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #16 (preprocessor/preprocessor16.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor16.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #17 (preprocessor/preprocessor17.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor17.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #18 (preprocessor/preprocessor18.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor18.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #19 (preprocessor/preprocessor19.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor19.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #2 (preprocessor/preprocessor2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #20 (preprocessor/preprocessor20.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor20.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #21 (preprocessor/preprocessor21.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor21.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #22 (preprocessor/preprocessor22.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor22.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #23 (preprocessor/preprocessor23.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor23.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #3 (preprocessor/preprocessor3.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor3.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #4 (preprocessor/preprocessor4.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor4.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #5 (preprocessor/preprocessor5.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor5.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #6 (preprocessor/preprocessor6.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor6.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #7 (preprocessor/preprocessor7.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor7.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #8 (preprocessor/preprocessor8.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor8.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #9 (preprocessor/preprocessor9.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor9.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Preprocessor #14 (preprocessor/stringify.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/stringify.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    wide char token-pasting (preprocessor/wide.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E preprocessor/wide.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Compile skip function prototype (prototype.c)
		Using command       : ../sparsec -c prototype.c -o tmp.o
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    ptr-inherit.c (ptr-inherit.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse ptr-inherit.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Pure function attribute (pure-function.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse pure-function.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    const et.al. are reserved identifiers (reserved.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse reserved.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    restrict array attribute (restrict-array.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse restrict-array.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typeof with bitwise types (restricted-typeof.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wbitwise restricted-typeof.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    sizeof(_Bool) is valid (sizeof-bool.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wsizeof-bool sizeof-bool.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Handling of sizeof compound-literal . member (sizeof-compound-postfix.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse sizeof-compound-postfix.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    valid specifier combinations (specifiers1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse specifiers1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    invalid specifier combinations (specifiers2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse specifiers2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    static forward declaration (static-forward-decl.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse static-forward-decl.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    static assertion (static_assert.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse static_assert.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Address space of a struct member (struct-as.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse struct-as.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    struct attribute placement (struct-attribute-placement.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse struct-attribute-placement.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    struct namespaces #1 (struct-ns1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse struct-ns1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    struct not in scope (struct-ns2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse struct-ns2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see struct-ns2.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- struct-ns2.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:09.076152032 +0000
	+++ struct-ns2.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:09.068151920 +0000
	@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
	-struct-ns2.c:2:11: warning: bad scope for 'struct Bar'
	-struct-ns2.c:12:14: error: incomplete type/unknown size for 'y'
	-struct-ns2.c:13:5: error: using member 'i' in incomplete 'struct Bar'
	info: test 'struct-ns2.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    struct size (struct-size1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse struct-size1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    tautological-compare (tautological-compare.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wno-decl -Wtautological-compare tautological-compare.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    binary operations (test-be.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse test-be.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    selfcheck1 (testsuite-selfcheck1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E testsuite-selfcheck1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    selfcheck2 (testsuite-selfcheck2.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E testsuite-selfcheck2.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: Actual output doesn't contain some of the expected patterns.
	info: test 'testsuite-selfcheck2.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    selfcheck3 (testsuite-selfcheck3.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -E testsuite-selfcheck3.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: Actual output contains some patterns which are not expected.
	info: test 'testsuite-selfcheck3.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    Transparent union attribute. (transparent-union.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse transparent-union.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    "char []" to "char *" demotion (type1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse type1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typedef shadowing (typedef_shadow.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typedef_shadow.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typeof-addresspace.c (typeof-addresspace.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typeof-addresspace.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see typeof-addresspace.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- typeof-addresspace.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:09.204153823 +0000
	+++ typeof-addresspace.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:09.200153767 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
	+typeof-addresspace.c:9:30: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
	+typeof-addresspace.c:9:30:    expected int *ptr3
	+typeof-addresspace.c:9:30:    got int <asn:1>*ptr
	+typeof-addresspace.c:10:29: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces)
	+typeof-addresspace.c:10:29:    expected int *ptr4
	+typeof-addresspace.c:10:29:    got int <asn:1>*ptr
	info: test 'typeof-addresspace.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    Rusty Russell's typeof attribute casting. (typeof-attribute.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typeof-attribute.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typeof-mods (typeof-mods.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typeof-mods.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    typeof-noderef (typeof-noderef.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typeof-noderef.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see typeof-noderef.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- typeof-noderef.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:09.240154327 +0000
	+++ typeof-noderef.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:09.236154271 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
	+typeof-noderef.c:7:30: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
	+typeof-noderef.c:7:30:    expected int *ptr3
	+typeof-noderef.c:7:30:    got int [noderef] *ptr
	+typeof-noderef.c:8:29: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
	+typeof-noderef.c:8:29:    expected int *ptr4
	+typeof-noderef.c:8:29:    got int [noderef] *ptr
	info: test 'typeof-noderef.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    typeof-safe (typeof-safe.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse typeof-safe.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
	error: see typeof-safe.c.error.* for further investigation.
	--- typeof-safe.c.error.expected	2017-08-30 16:02:09.252154495 +0000
	+++ typeof-safe.c.error.got	2017-08-30 16:02:09.248154439 +0000
	@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
	+typeof-safe.c:9:30: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
	+typeof-safe.c:9:30:    expected int *ptr3
	+typeof-safe.c:9:30:    got int [safe] *ptr
	+typeof-safe.c:10:29: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
	+typeof-safe.c:10:29:    expected int *ptr4
	+typeof-safe.c:10:29:    got int [safe] *ptr
	+typeof-safe.c:13:13: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different modifiers)
	+typeof-safe.c:13:13:    expected int [safe] *[assigned] ptr
	+typeof-safe.c:13:13:    got int *<noident>
	info: test 'typeof-safe.c' is known to fail
	     TEST    -Wtypesign (typesign.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse -Wtypesign typesign.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    Varargs bogus warning regression test #1 (varargs1.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse varargs1.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	     TEST    wide character constants (wide.c)
		Using command       : ../sparse wide.c
		Expecting exit value: 0
	Out of 287 tests, 272 passed, 15 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
	Makefile:232: recipe for target 'check' failed
	make: *** [check] Error 1
	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ 


The problem is that some cpp symbols are not defined in sparse that are
expected to exist. So I can "fix" backend/sum.c with the following
patch:

diff --git a/validation/backend/sum.c b/validation/backend/sum.c
index 0604299..d0be8dd 100644
--- a/validation/backend/sum.c
+++ b/validation/backend/sum.c
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+#define __powerpc64__
+#define _CALL_ELF 2
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 

I'm a bit clueless how sparse works here. I see __powerpc64__ and _CALL_ELF
already defined in cgcc, but sparse-llvm doesn't pick it up from there.

I didn't check deeply, but I guess for say amd64 the situation should be
similar because there __x86_64__ is required to be defined.

Can you give me a hint how to fix this? Is this a problem in sparse
itself or maybe llvm?

Best regards
Uwe

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/873508

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Ramsay Jones]

On 30/08/17 17:14, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
> common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
> nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:

The only architecture, from the above list, that is not supported
by cgcc seems to be ppc32le.

> 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ git rev-parse HEAD
> 	958c11c35d98417eb6b948bffe2dffed14eb3320
> 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ uname -a
> 	Linux plummer 4.9.0-3-powerpc64le #1 SMP Debian 4.9.30-2+deb9u3 (2017-08-06) ppc64le GNU/Linux
> 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ make check V=1

It would be easier to see the results if you _didn't_ add V=1. ;-)

[snip]
> 	Out of 287 tests, 272 passed, 15 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
> 	Makefile:232: recipe for target 'check' failed
> 	make: *** [check] Error 1
> 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ 

The additional five failures are all in the llvm backend (sparsec),
which you do not need to use sparse as a 'checker'.

> The problem is that some cpp symbols are not defined in sparse that are
> expected to exist. So I can "fix" backend/sum.c with the following
> patch:
> 
> diff --git a/validation/backend/sum.c b/validation/backend/sum.c
> index 0604299..d0be8dd 100644
> --- a/validation/backend/sum.c
> +++ b/validation/backend/sum.c
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> +#define __powerpc64__
> +#define _CALL_ELF 2
>  #include <stdio.h>
>  #include <stdlib.h>
>  
> 

Yep, sparse/sparsec do not define various macros that gcc/clang define
by default on a given architecture. This is a known problem (that I have
been meaning to fix ...). The 'workaround' for the time being is to use
the cgcc front-end to sparse. (for example 'make CC=cgcc', or perhaps
'cgcc -no-compile').

[You didn't mention your usage - is this for a kernel build?]

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2363 bytes --]

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:55:00PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 30/08/17 17:14, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ make check V=1
> 
> It would be easier to see the results if you _didn't_ add V=1. ;-)

noted for the next time.

> [snip]
> > 	Out of 287 tests, 272 passed, 15 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
> > 	Makefile:232: recipe for target 'check' failed
> > 	make: *** [check] Error 1
> > 	ukleinek@plummer:~/sparse$ 
> 
> The additional five failures are all in the llvm backend (sparsec),
> which you do not need to use sparse as a 'checker'.
> 
> > The problem is that some cpp symbols are not defined in sparse that are
> > expected to exist. So I can "fix" backend/sum.c with the following
> > patch:
> > 
> > diff --git a/validation/backend/sum.c b/validation/backend/sum.c
> > index 0604299..d0be8dd 100644
> > --- a/validation/backend/sum.c
> > +++ b/validation/backend/sum.c
> > @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> > +#define __powerpc64__
> > +#define _CALL_ELF 2
> >  #include <stdio.h>
> >  #include <stdlib.h>
> >  
> > 
> 
> Yep, sparse/sparsec do not define various macros that gcc/clang define
> by default on a given architecture. This is a known problem (that I have
> been meaning to fix ...). The 'workaround' for the time being is to use
> the cgcc front-end to sparse. (for example 'make CC=cgcc', or perhaps
> 'cgcc -no-compile').
> 
> [You didn't mention your usage - is this for a kernel build?]

This problem became visible during the make check phase when creating packaged
on the listed archs for horst[1]. You can see a build logs at

	https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=s390x&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503905687&raw=0
	https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=ppc64el&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503906226&raw=0

The error message looks identical (I checked the ppc64el log) to the
problem with backend/sum.c:

	sparse -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -g -I. -DDO_DEBUG -I/usr/include/libnl3 *.[ch]
	/usr/include/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/gnu/stubs.h:8:12: error: unable to open 'gnu/stubs-32.h'
	Makefile:113: recipe for target 'check' failed
	make[1]: *** [check] Error 1

Best regards
Uwe

[1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/horst

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > diff --git a/validation/backend/sum.c b/validation/backend/sum.c
>> > index 0604299..d0be8dd 100644
>> > --- a/validation/backend/sum.c
>> > +++ b/validation/backend/sum.c
>> > @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>> > +#define __powerpc64__
>> > +#define _CALL_ELF 2
>> >  #include <stdio.h>
>> >  #include <stdlib.h>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yep, sparse/sparsec do not define various macros that gcc/clang define
>> by default on a given architecture. This is a known problem (that I have
>> been meaning to fix ...). The 'workaround' for the time being is to use
>> the cgcc front-end to sparse. (for example 'make CC=cgcc', or perhaps
>> 'cgcc -no-compile').
>>
>> [You didn't mention your usage - is this for a kernel build?]
>
> This problem became visible during the make check phase when creating packaged
> on the listed archs for horst[1]. You can see a build logs at
>
>         https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=s390x&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503905687&raw=0
>         https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=ppc64el&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503906226&raw=0
>
> The error message looks identical (I checked the ppc64el log) to the
> problem with backend/sum.c:
>
>         sparse -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -g -I. -DDO_DEBUG -I/usr/include/libnl3 *.[ch]
>         /usr/include/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/gnu/stubs.h:8:12: error: unable to open 'gnu/stubs-32.h'

That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"

Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
"sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2277 bytes --]

Hello Christopher,

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:11:49PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/validation/backend/sum.c b/validation/backend/sum.c
> >> > index 0604299..d0be8dd 100644
> >> > --- a/validation/backend/sum.c
> >> > +++ b/validation/backend/sum.c
> >> > @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> >> > +#define __powerpc64__
> >> > +#define _CALL_ELF 2
> >> >  #include <stdio.h>
> >> >  #include <stdlib.h>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yep, sparse/sparsec do not define various macros that gcc/clang define
> >> by default on a given architecture. This is a known problem (that I have
> >> been meaning to fix ...). The 'workaround' for the time being is to use
> >> the cgcc front-end to sparse. (for example 'make CC=cgcc', or perhaps
> >> 'cgcc -no-compile').
> >>
> >> [You didn't mention your usage - is this for a kernel build?]
> >
> > This problem became visible during the make check phase when creating packaged
> > on the listed archs for horst[1]. You can see a build logs at
> >
> >         https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=s390x&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503905687&raw=0
> >         https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=horst&arch=ppc64el&ver=5.0-1&stamp=1503906226&raw=0
> >
> > The error message looks identical (I checked the ppc64el log) to the
> > problem with backend/sum.c:
> >
> >         sparse -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -g -I. -DDO_DEBUG -I/usr/include/libnl3 *.[ch]
> >         /usr/include/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/gnu/stubs.h:8:12: error: unable to open 'gnu/stubs-32.h'
> 
> That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"
> 
> Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
> related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
> "sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"

Yes that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:

 - move sparse to /usr/lib
 - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
 - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"

or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Ramsay Jones]

On 31/08/17 21:55, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:11:49PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
>> That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"
>>
>> Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
>> related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
>> "sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"
> 
> Yes that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> 
>  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"

Hmm, I don't think that would be a good idea ...

> or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?

I now understand (I think!) that you are building a sparse
package (presumably a .deb) and you are concerned that sparse
does not pass it's own testsuite on those platforms.

As I said before, the additional failures you are seeing are
in the 'llvm backend' code (which, as far as I know, only passes
on x86_64 Linux), and in my opinion the llvm-backend programs should
not be installed. (The Makefile will build them automatically if
you have llvm installed, likewise for c2xml/libxml and test-inspect/gtk).

[I would like to see build variable(s) to allow the user to suppress
the build (or installation) of the other 'non-primary' sparse programs.]

Anyway, if you were to un-install llvm, sparse-llvm etc., would not
be built, and the tests would not be run ... ;-)

Christopher, as the project maintainer, has the joy of making these
kinds of decisions! :-D

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Ramsay Jones
>>  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>>  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>>  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
>
> Hmm, I don't think that would be a good idea ...
>

Agree.

>
> Anyway, if you were to un-install llvm, sparse-llvm etc., would not
> be built, and the tests would not be run ... ;-)

I think Uwe already confirm using cgcc to invoke sparse will
fix the problem.

In this test, we just need to use cgcc to invoke sparse-llvm.
I have a patch to fix the usage in test-suite in the other email.

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2794 bytes --]

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 31/08/17 21:55, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:11:49PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> >> That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"
> >>
> >> Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
> >> related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
> >> "sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"
> > 
> > Yes that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> > 
> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
> 
> Hmm, I don't think that would be a good idea ...
> 
> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
> 
> I now understand (I think!) that you are building a sparse
> package (presumably a .deb) and you are concerned that sparse
> does not pass it's own testsuite on those platforms.

Nearly right. I'm responsible for the sparse Debian package and the
problem at hand is https://bugs.debian.org/873508. This bug report has
"Severity: serious" wihch might eventually result in the removal of
sparse from the Debian archive.

@anarcat: Given that cgcc seems to work, would you agree to apply the
following patch to horst:

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 4f924fa..d563652 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ $(NAME): $(OBJS)
 $(OBJS): .buildflags
 
 check:
-	sparse $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
+	cgcc -no-compile $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
 
 clean:
 	-rm -f *.o radiotap/*.o *~

and downgrade the bug to "important"? That would be a compromise that
buys us a bit of time.
 
> As I said before, the additional failures you are seeing are
> in the 'llvm backend' code (which, as far as I know, only passes
> on x86_64 Linux), and in my opinion the llvm-backend programs should
> not be installed. (The Makefile will build them automatically if
> you have llvm installed, likewise for c2xml/libxml and test-inspect/gtk).

Currently the sparse package contains /usr/include/sparse/, c2xml, cgcc,
sparse, sparse-llvm, sparsec and a separate package sparse-test-inspect
includes test-inspect. (That's how I inherited the package some time
ago.)
 
> [I would like to see build variable(s) to allow the user to suppress
> the build (or installation) of the other 'non-primary' sparse programs.]
> 
> Anyway, if you were to un-install llvm, sparse-llvm etc., would not
> be built, and the tests would not be run ... ;-)
> 
> Christopher, as the project maintainer, has the joy of making these
> kinds of decisions! :-D

This only solves a part of the problem because the bug report is about
sparse itself, not it's llvm part.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Antoine Beaupré]

On 2017-09-01 09:46:44, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> On 31/08/17 21:55, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:11:49PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
>> >> That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"
>> >>
>> >> Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
>> >> related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
>> >> "sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"
>> > 
>> > Yes that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
>> > 
>> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
>> 
>> Hmm, I don't think that would be a good idea ...
>> 
>> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
>> 
>> I now understand (I think!) that you are building a sparse
>> package (presumably a .deb) and you are concerned that sparse
>> does not pass it's own testsuite on those platforms.
>
> Nearly right. I'm responsible for the sparse Debian package and the
> problem at hand is https://bugs.debian.org/873508. This bug report has
> "Severity: serious" wihch might eventually result in the removal of
> sparse from the Debian archive.
>
> @anarcat: Given that cgcc seems to work, would you agree to apply the
> following patch to horst:
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 4f924fa..d563652 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ $(NAME): $(OBJS)
>  $(OBJS): .buildflags
>  
>  check:
> -	sparse $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
> +	cgcc -no-compile $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
>  
>  clean:
>  	-rm -f *.o radiotap/*.o *~
>
> and downgrade the bug to "important"? That would be a compromise that
> buys us a bit of time.

Well right now I have simply disabled the checks for those broken
architectures, so sparse isn't as affected anymore.

Frankly, I don't quite know what to do with this - but I'd be happy to
happly that patch to sparse if it fixes the issue better.

A.

-- 
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
                        - Benjamin Franklin, 1755

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
\>
> Nearly right. I'm responsible for the sparse Debian package and the
> problem at hand is https://bugs.debian.org/873508. This bug report has
> "Severity: serious" wihch might eventually result in the removal of
> sparse from the Debian archive.
>
> @anarcat: Given that cgcc seems to work, would you agree to apply the
> following patch to horst:
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 4f924fa..d563652 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ $(NAME): $(OBJS)
>  $(OBJS): .buildflags
>
>  check:
> -       sparse $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
> +       cgcc -no-compile $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]

You patch definitely works.
I think it is the better way to fix it.
Sparse "selfcheck" target was doing the same thing.
It is using "cgcc -no-compile" already.

I suggest in your patch you can do some thing
similar to "selfcheck" target:

CHECKER = cgcc -no-compile

         $(CHECKER) $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]

Later when we update sparse to handle architecture
properly. We can just invoke make with "CHECKER=xxxx"
to test.


> and downgrade the bug to "important"? That would be a compromise that
> buys us a bit of time.

Agree.

>
> This only solves a part of the problem because the bug report is about
> sparse itself, not it's llvm part.

I agree with that too.

Chris

Re: Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1494 bytes --]

Control: clone 873508 -1
Control: retitle -1 Please use cgcc to check hosted C code instead of sparse
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: reassign -1 horst

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:46:44AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> @anarcat: Given that cgcc seems to work, would you agree to apply the
> following patch to horst:
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 4f924fa..d563652 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ $(NAME): $(OBJS)
>  $(OBJS): .buildflags
>  
>  check:
> -	sparse $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
> +	cgcc -no-compile $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
>  
>  clean:
>  	-rm -f *.o radiotap/*.o *~
> 

In the meantime I learned from upstream that sparse is not expected to
grok arbitrary hosted code. For that it is needed to use the cgcc
wrapper to handle the required cpp symbols. That it works on some
architectures with plain sparse is mostly luck.

I still expect some platforms to fail with the wrapper, too, because
cgcc doesn't know about all platforms yet. But I intend to upload a new
sparse package soon that includes a build time check for that, and the
respective fixes are easy.

> and downgrade the bug to "important"? That would be a compromise that
> buys us a bit of time.

I'd say sparse failing on hosted code isn't "important", but cgcc should
have all necessary definitions for Debian platforms. So I'm keeping this
bug at important and intend to close it once all platforms are known to
it.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

Control: severity 873508 normal
Control: retitle 873508 Fix FTBFS for m68k, hurd, x32 and ppc64

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:58:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I still expect some platforms to fail with the wrapper, too, because
> cgcc doesn't know about all platforms yet. But I intend to upload a new
> sparse package soon that includes a build time check for that, and the
> respective fixes are easy.

I did that now, and at least all official Debian ports pass that new
check. I downgraded the severity accordingly to normal.
 
Current build failures can be seen at

	https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=sparse&suite=unstable

hurd fails because it doesn't define PATH_MAX and NAME_MAX. m68k fails
with

	sparse: ptrlist.c:125: __add_ptr_list: Assertion `(3 & (unsigned long)ptr) == 0' failed.

(Didn't look into this one yet.) And ppc64 and x32 need the respective
cpp defines added I think. If noone beats me to it, I will look into the
latter at least during the next few days.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:11:01PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> And ppc64 and x32 need the respective cpp defines added I think. If
> noone beats me to it, I will look into the latter at least during the
> next few days.

Looking at ppc64, the following fixes the build: 

diff --git a/cgcc b/cgcc
index a8d7b4f217fe..a1c02899c623 100755
--- a/cgcc
+++ b/cgcc
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ sub add_specs {
     } elsif ($spec eq 'ppc64') {
 	return (' -D__powerpc__=1 -D__PPC__=1 -D_STRING_ARCH_unaligned=1' .
 		' -D__powerpc64__=1 -D__PPC64__=1' .
-		' -D_CALL_ELF=2' .
+		' -D_CALL_ELF=1' .
 		' -m64' .
 		&float_types (1, 1, 21, [24,8], [53,11], [113,15]));
     } elsif ($spec eq 's390x') {

I wonder if that could be right. Luc, you added =2 in
e0306fe0b725af6e2e7ff59d7f0d99c96315791a, maybe you can comment?

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
<uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:11:01PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> And ppc64 and x32 need the respective cpp defines added I think. If
>> noone beats me to it, I will look into the latter at least during the
>> next few days.
>
> Looking at ppc64, the following fixes the build:
>
> diff --git a/cgcc b/cgcc
> index a8d7b4f217fe..a1c02899c623 100755
> --- a/cgcc
> +++ b/cgcc
> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ sub add_specs {
>      } elsif ($spec eq 'ppc64') {
>         return (' -D__powerpc__=1 -D__PPC__=1 -D_STRING_ARCH_unaligned=1' .
>                 ' -D__powerpc64__=1 -D__PPC64__=1' .
> -               ' -D_CALL_ELF=2' .
> +               ' -D_CALL_ELF=1' .
>                 ' -m64' .
>                 &float_types (1, 1, 21, [24,8], [53,11], [113,15]));
>      } elsif ($spec eq 's390x') {
>
> I wonder if that could be right. Luc, you added =2 in
> e0306fe0b725af6e2e7ff59d7f0d99c96315791a, maybe you can comment?

Neither =2 or =1 is correct, it depends on which version of the ELF
ABI you're using.
This in turn (as I understood) is most of the time tied to fact that
you're using ppc64le
(which normally needs ELFv2) or not.

I can't look at this now but will do this evening.

-- Luc

[PATCH] fix cgcc ELF version for ppc64/pcc64le

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

Commit e0306fe0 "cgcc: teach cgcc about ppc64[le]" add support
for PPC64 to cgcc by adding the needed options like '-m64' &
'-m{little,big}-endian' and defines likes '-D__PPC64__=1'.

In this commit the defined '-D_CALL_ELF=2' was also added
but the value of 2 is for ELF v2 ABI, normally used for ppc64le,
while the older ELF ABI, normally used for plain ppc64 should use
'-D_CALL_ELF=2'.

Fix this by using the value of 1 or 2 for '_CALL_ELF' depending
if the architecture is ppc64 or ppc64le.

Fixes: e0306fe0b725af6e2e7ff59d7f0d99c96315791a
Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
---
 cgcc | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/cgcc b/cgcc
index a8d7b4f21..909cd2477 100755
--- a/cgcc
+++ b/cgcc
@@ -286,7 +286,6 @@ sub add_specs {
     } elsif ($spec eq 'ppc64') {
 	return (' -D__powerpc__=1 -D__PPC__=1 -D_STRING_ARCH_unaligned=1' .
 		' -D__powerpc64__=1 -D__PPC64__=1' .
-		' -D_CALL_ELF=2' .
 		' -m64' .
 		&float_types (1, 1, 21, [24,8], [53,11], [113,15]));
     } elsif ($spec eq 's390x') {
@@ -317,9 +316,9 @@ sub add_specs {
 	} elsif ($arch =~ /^(ppc)$/i) {
 	    return &add_specs ('ppc');
 	} elsif ($arch =~ /^(ppc64)$/i) {
-	    return &add_specs ('ppc64') . ' -mbig-endian';
+	    return &add_specs ('ppc64') . ' -mbig-endian -D_CALL_ELF=1';
 	} elsif ($arch =~ /^(ppc64le)$/i) {
-	    return &add_specs ('ppc64') . ' -mlittle-endian';
+	    return &add_specs ('ppc64') . ' -mlittle-endian -D_CALL_ELF=2';
 	} elsif ($arch =~ /^(s390x)$/i) {
 	    return &add_specs ('s390x');
 	} elsif ($arch =~ /^(sparc64)$/i) {
-- 
2.14.0

Re: [PATCH] fix cgcc ELF version for ppc64/pcc64le

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

Hello Luc,

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> Commit e0306fe0 "cgcc: teach cgcc about ppc64[le]" add support
> for PPC64 to cgcc by adding the needed options like '-m64' &
> '-m{little,big}-endian' and defines likes '-D__PPC64__=1'.
> 
> In this commit the defined '-D_CALL_ELF=2' was also added
> but the value of 2 is for ELF v2 ABI, normally used for ppc64le,
> while the older ELF ABI, normally used for plain ppc64 should use
> '-D_CALL_ELF=2'.
> 
> Fix this by using the value of 1 or 2 for '_CALL_ELF' depending
> if the architecture is ppc64 or ppc64le.
> 
> Fixes: e0306fe0b725af6e2e7ff59d7f0d99c96315791a
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>

I tested that patch on the following machines:

hostname/chroot                 uname -m        gcc -dumpmachine
partch/sid                      ppc             powerpc-linux-gnu
pizzetti/sid_ppc64-dchroot      ppc64           powerpc64-linux-gnu
plummer/sid_ppc64el-dchroot     ppc64le         powerpc64le-linux-gnu

and my test case (env CHECK=./sparse ./cgcc -no-compile memops.c) works
on all of them now.

Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>

Thanks
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fix cgcc ELF version for ppc64/pcc64le

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:49:13AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Luc,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > Commit e0306fe0 "cgcc: teach cgcc about ppc64[le]" add support
> > for PPC64 to cgcc by adding the needed options like '-m64' &
> > '-m{little,big}-endian' and defines likes '-D__PPC64__=1'.
> > 
> > In this commit the defined '-D_CALL_ELF=2' was also added
> > but the value of 2 is for ELF v2 ABI, normally used for ppc64le,
> > while the older ELF ABI, normally used for plain ppc64 should use
> > '-D_CALL_ELF=2'.
> > 
> > Fix this by using the value of 1 or 2 for '_CALL_ELF' depending
> > if the architecture is ppc64 or ppc64le.
> > 
> > Fixes: e0306fe0b725af6e2e7ff59d7f0d99c96315791a
> > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> 
> I tested that patch on the following machines:
> 
> hostname/chroot                 uname -m        gcc -dumpmachine
> partch/sid                      ppc             powerpc-linux-gnu
> pizzetti/sid_ppc64-dchroot      ppc64           powerpc64-linux-gnu
> plummer/sid_ppc64el-dchroot     ppc64le         powerpc64le-linux-gnu
> 
> and my test case (env CHECK=./sparse ./cgcc -no-compile memops.c) works
> on all of them now.
> 
> Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>
> 
> Thanks
> Uwe

Many thanks for the testing.


@ Chris,

Can you take the patch as is or do you prefer that I send a pull request?

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] fix cgcc ELF version for ppc64/pcc64le

[Christopher Li]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @ Chris,
>
> Can you take the patch as is or do you prefer that I send a pull request?
>

Let me get to that tonight. Sorry for the delay.

Chris

Re: [PATCH] fix cgcc ELF version for ppc64/pcc64le

[Christopher Li]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Commit e0306fe0 "cgcc: teach cgcc about ppc64[le]" add support
> for PPC64 to cgcc by adding the needed options like '-m64' &
> '-m{little,big}-endian' and defines likes '-D__PPC64__=1'.
>
> In this commit the defined '-D_CALL_ELF=2' was also added
> but the value of 2 is for ELF v2 ABI, normally used for ppc64le,
> while the older ELF ABI, normally used for plain ppc64 should use
> '-D_CALL_ELF=2'.
>
> Fix this by using the value of 1 or 2 for '_CALL_ELF' depending
> if the architecture is ppc64 or ppc64le.

Applied on master.

Chris

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Antoine Beaupré]

Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/br101/horst/issues/93

On 2017-09-01 10:46:44, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> On 31/08/17 21:55, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:11:49PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
>> >> That is very much like on x86_64 missing define "#weak_define __x86_64__ 1"
>> >>
>> >> Does cgcc work for you? In the future we do want to move the archetecture
>> >> related define from cgcc into sparse by itself. For now you can set
>> >> "sparse" as "cgcc -no-compile"
>> > 
>> > Yes that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
>> > 
>> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
>> 
>> Hmm, I don't think that would be a good idea ...
>> 
>> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
>> 
>> I now understand (I think!) that you are building a sparse
>> package (presumably a .deb) and you are concerned that sparse
>> does not pass it's own testsuite on those platforms.
>
> Nearly right. I'm responsible for the sparse Debian package and the
> problem at hand is https://bugs.debian.org/873508. This bug report has
> "Severity: serious" wihch might eventually result in the removal of
> sparse from the Debian archive.
>
> @anarcat: Given that cgcc seems to work, would you agree to apply the
> following patch to horst:
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 4f924fa..d563652 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ $(NAME): $(OBJS)
>  $(OBJS): .buildflags
>  
>  check:
> -	sparse $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
> +	cgcc -no-compile $(CFLAGS) *.[ch]
>  
>  clean:
>  	-rm -f *.o radiotap/*.o *~
>
> and downgrade the bug to "important"? That would be a compromise that
> buys us a bit of time.

For what it's worth, this doesn't work with the latest horst. I've
reported the bug upstream now and disabled the checks for all
architectures now that it also fails on amd64.

A.

-- 
Wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail
in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Radio operates
exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them
there. The only difference is that there is no cat.
                         - Albert Einstein [apocryphal]

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:28:54PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/br101/horst/issues/93

Hi,

The issue showed there, more precisely the one:
  /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/mathcalls-helper-functions.h:21:1: error: Expected ) in function declarator
is caused by sparse's lack of support for _Float128 and occurs with
recent version of glibc.

This has been fixed and upstreamed (see
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/sparse.git/commit/?id=4e9c8ee467dd87d41d5aaa3c5a487e3f05ffb79c
for more details).
 
Best regards,
-- Luc

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
>
>  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"

I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.

>
> or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?

First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.

For this case, I think it is easier to teach the sparse validation
code to use cgcc on those back end testing. Most validation don't
need to include system header file at all so it does not have
this problem.

How about this patch?
I know my patch is white space damaged in email.
Git branch is at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/chrisl/sparse.git/log/?h=llvm-cgcc

Please let me know if that fix your problem. It pass check
on my local machine running x86_64. I don't have ppc64 to
test with.

Chris

diff --git a/sparsec b/sparsec
index 9dc96c9..2990d26 100755
--- a/sparsec
+++ b/sparsec
@@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ done
 TMPLLVM=`mktemp -t tmp.XXXXXX`".llvm"
 TMPFILE=`mktemp -t tmp.XXXXXX`".o"

-$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $SPARSEOPTS > $TMPLLVM
+env CHECK=$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $DIRNAME/cgcc -no-compile \
+       $SPARSEOPTS > $TMPLLVM

 LLC=`"${LLVM_CONFIG:-llvm-config}" --bindir`/llc

diff --git a/sparsei b/sparsei
index 3431a9f..3abd00f 100755
--- a/sparsei
+++ b/sparsei
@@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
   exit 1
 fi

-$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $@ | $LLI
+env CHECK=$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $DIRNAME/cgcc -no-compile $@ | $LLI

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Josh Triplett]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:55PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
> that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> >
> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
> 
> I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.
> 
> >
> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
> 
> First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
> stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.

Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"
as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
*every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
architecture.

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:02:12AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:55PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
> > that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> > >
> > >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
> > >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
> > >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
> > 
> > I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.
> > 
> > >
> > > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
> > 
> > First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
> > stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.
> 
> Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
> entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
> world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
> platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"
> as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
> major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
> *every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
> architecture.

You'd need the target arch's system headers though. But still it would
be great. In a first attempt something like:

	#ifdef __powerpc__
		add_pre_buffer("#weak_define __powerpc__ " __powerpc__ "\n");
	#ifdef _CALL_ELF
		add_pre_buffer("#weak_define _CALL_ELF " _CALL_ELF "\n");
	#endif
	#endif

would be helpful already.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Josh Triplett]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:57:09AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:02:12AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:55PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
> > > that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> > > >
> > > >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
> > > >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
> > > >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
> > > 
> > > I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
> > > 
> > > First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
> > > stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.
> > 
> > Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
> > entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
> > world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
> > platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"
> > as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
> > major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
> > *every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
> > architecture.
> 
> You'd need the target arch's system headers though.

Only for building userspace code, not for building standalone/kernel
code, or the Sparse testsuite.

- Josh Triplett

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>> First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
>> stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.
>
> Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
> entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
> world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
> platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"

Yes, that is what I want to have. It is list as one of the project in
project idea document as well. I have  a related question. How do we
test the different architecture handling without actually run sparse
on different platform? I am thinking maybe using gcc cross platform
compiler and compare some macro against the sparse one.

> as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
> major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
> *every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
> architecture.

Another way to fix the test suite for now would be let testsuite
specify using cgcc instead of sparse directly, for the test source
that needs it. That will buy us some time. Fixing sparse properly
in the long term obvious would be better.

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:55PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
>> that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
>> >
>> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
>> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
>> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
>>
>> I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.
>>
>> >
>> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
>>
>> First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
>> stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.
>
> Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
> entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
> world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
> platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"
> as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
> major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
> *every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
> architecture.

I really think that the testsuite should not depend on system or library
header.

Otherwise, I'm not at all opposed to sparse being universal but I would like
to note that things can become very quickly very very messy.
For example, for the current problem here I understood that it was
at least partially based on the lack of a definition of _CALL_ELF
but do we need to define it to 1 or to 2, in other words, do we need
to support the ELFv1 ABI or the ELFv2? GCC has some flags for this
(-mabi=elfv[12]) but what default value do we want? ELFv1 is the default
for big-endian platform and ELFv2 for little-endian platform, so yes,
we need a flag for the endianness but which endianness we want as default?
And so on.

Things become even more fun when taking in account the difference
between GCC version. Do we want to be universal there too (and thus
have some flags for to specify which gcc's version we want to mimick)?
What about other compilers?


I think that part of the needed info can be auto-extracted from GCC
when doing a native build. Using some sort of spec file or a .sparserc
can help too.

I also note that currently, sparse is already largely universal *because*
it *doesn't* need those platform details (or only the very minimal: word size).

-- Luc Van Oostenryck

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I really think that the testsuite should not depend on system or library
> header.

I think that is a good point. We can start cleaning up the system header
file dependency in the existing test suite. See how it goes.

>
> Otherwise, I'm not at all opposed to sparse being universal but I would like
> to note that things can become very quickly very very messy.
> For example, for the current problem here I understood that it was
> at least partially based on the lack of a definition of _CALL_ELF
> but do we need to define it to 1 or to 2, in other words, do we need
> to support the ELFv1 ABI or the ELFv2? GCC has some flags for this
> (-mabi=elfv[12]) but what default value do we want? ELFv1 is the default

I think we can just sparse default to as late as the latest release
version of gcc.

> for big-endian platform and ELFv2 for little-endian platform, so yes,
> we need a flag for the endianness but which endianness we want as default?

I am tempting to make the endianness the same as the host gcc by default.
Then it can be overwrite by architecture flags.

>
> Things become even more fun when taking in account the difference
> between GCC version. Do we want to be universal there too (and thus
> have some flags for to specify which gcc's version we want to mimick)?
> What about other compilers?

I purpose just sync to the latest gcc version (or a late enough version
we can agree on. e.g. the one that supported by kernel compile.) Sparse
current try to sync to the latest gcc attributes already.

> I think that part of the needed info can be auto-extracted from GCC
> when doing a native build. Using some sort of spec file or a .sparserc

Is there a way to do auto-extract? That would be a good starting point.

> I also note that currently, sparse is already largely universal *because*
> it *doesn't* need those platform details (or only the very minimal: word size).

Sparse is not universal, it just support a very small sub set of the C
source file that haven't expose to those platform detail macros. Adding
those architecture macro support will not make it any less universal.
Might slow things down, that is some thing we need to watch out for.

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3891 bytes --]

[readding people to Cc assuming that's ok]

Hello Luc,

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:36:47PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> > On 09/03/2017 11:14 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> >>> Related to that: while it would mean we couldn't necessarily just rely
> >>> entirely on GCC's definitions for a target platform, I think in an ideal
> >>> world we could have a sparse binary that understood *all* target
> >>> platforms at once, such that you could ask Sparse on x86_64 to "compile"
> >>> as though targeting any arbitrary architecture. That would also have the
> >>> major advantage of making it easy to run the Sparse testsuite for
> >>> *every* target architecture without needing compilers for every such
> >>> architecture.
> >>
> >> I really think that the testsuite should not depend on system or library
> >> header.
> >
> > Assuming it's intended that sparse should be able to check userspace
> > programs, I don't agree here.
> 
> I understand this.
> I'll explain a bit better my point of view.
> First, I make a distinction between 'sparse core functionalities' and
> general usage.
> I was talking about this core usage and the testsuite is currently for this core
> usage too.

and while it's ok to test the core stuff and not wanting the system
includes to interfere, there should also be tests that check "ordinary"
userspace programs which naturally depend on the system headers.

> Asking for the testsuite to not depends on system or library header is exactly
> the same as GCC people asking bug reports to be done on pre-processed file
> (so that they focus on the core problem and not some problem with an header).
> This, of course, doesn't mean that GCC should only be used on standalone
> source files nor that GCC shouldn't be tested on real code, using
> system headers.
> It's just something different.
> 
> So to answer to your objection: yes, you're right but it should be done in some
> specific tests, not the core ones.

ah, we agree. Fine.

> Secondly, about "intended to check userspace programs":
> It's clear that sparse's main use is for the kernel, but it's also
> clear that it can
> and is used on other (userspace) projects.
> However, as you have seen yourself, you can't use sparse as is and expect
> to work on any environment, on any architecture. Even for the kernel it doesn't:
> each architecture has to specify a few flags (like -m32/-m64) and a few defines
> (-D__arm__, ...). For userspace, cgcc can do a part of this job for you.
> 
> Josh proposal to have what I called a 'universal' sparse, won't solve this,
> on the contrary.
> Compilers eschew part of this problem by having to configure the build
> 
> I'm all in favor to move cgcc logic to sparse and/or it's build system so that
> *for a native build* it can be used as-is in most cases.
> This would solve your problem, I think.
> 
> BTW, sorry I didn't follow last week but is your problem solved now?

No, it's not solved. But given that it is somehow known that sparse
(without cgcc) fails to work well on userspace stuff, I think the
following would be fine for the Debian side:

 a) let horst use cgcc instead of sparse
 b) downgrade bug to important or even normal pointing out that cgcc
    should be used for userspace programs

For sparse it would be cool to:

 c) drop the #weak_define of __amd64__ to make this "problem" more
    apparent. (Assuming this doesn't break e.g. a kernel build.)
 d) fix the test suite, at least mark the tests that are expected to
    fail on !x86 as such to make $(make check) succeed. (Otherwise I'd
    have to disable or ignore the testsuite which isn't that great.)
 
Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>
> and while it's ok to test the core stuff and not wanting the system
> includes to interfere, there should also be tests that check "ordinary"
> userspace programs which naturally depend on the system headers.
>

There is one. The "selfcheck" target was checking sparse on its own
source file. That will definitively use the system header file. However,
there are some warning trigger in the system header file can't be fixed
in the sparse source code. It need to change the system header to make
some warning go away, or disable that warning.

>
> No, it's not solved. But given that it is somehow known that sparse
> (without cgcc) fails to work well on userspace stuff, I think the
> following would be fine for the Debian side:
>
>  a) let horst use cgcc instead of sparse
>  b) downgrade bug to important or even normal pointing out that cgcc
>     should be used for userspace programs

That seems to be the right thing to do for now. That is until
sparse are smarter on user space header regarding architecture stuff.

> For sparse it would be cool to:
>
>  c) drop the #weak_define of __amd64__ to make this "problem" more
>     apparent. (Assuming this doesn't break e.g. a kernel build.)

You mean remove define of "__x86_64__".

It will likely break some other stuff. For the record the "selfcheck" target
already using cgcc. We still need to fix the breakage.

Any suggestion how to test sparse running on other platform headfile
without have to get access to ppc64 for example? I think that is the biggest
obstacle right now. I can make some changes, but I don't have a good way
to test it other than x86 platform.

>  d) fix the test suite, at least mark the tests that are expected to
>     fail on !x86 as such to make $(make check) succeed. (Otherwise I'd
>     have to disable or ignore the testsuite which isn't that great.)

We can make the test-suite not depend on system header files.
That seems to be the right think to do. I also send out a patch
to let the llvm back end test-suite use cgcc last week. Removing
system header usage in test suite is better.

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2875 bytes --]

Hello Christopher,

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:18:04AM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> > and while it's ok to test the core stuff and not wanting the system
> > includes to interfere, there should also be tests that check "ordinary"
> > userspace programs which naturally depend on the system headers.
> 
> There is one. The "selfcheck" target was checking sparse on its own
> source file. That will definitively use the system header file. However,
> there are some warning trigger in the system header file can't be fixed
> in the sparse source code. It need to change the system header to make
> some warning go away, or disable that warning.
> 
> >
> > No, it's not solved. But given that it is somehow known that sparse
> > (without cgcc) fails to work well on userspace stuff, I think the
> > following would be fine for the Debian side:
> >
> >  a) let horst use cgcc instead of sparse
> >  b) downgrade bug to important (or even normal) pointing out that
> >     cgcc should be used for userspace programs
> 
> That seems to be the right thing to do for now. That is until
> sparse are smarter on user space header regarding architecture stuff.

ok, Antoine, can you talk to the horst people and ask them to switch to
cgcc then?

> > For sparse it would be cool to:
> >
> >  c) drop the #weak_define of __amd64__ to make this "problem" more
> >     apparent. (Assuming this doesn't break e.g. a kernel build.)
> 
> You mean remove define of "__x86_64__".

ack.

> It will likely break some other stuff. For the record the "selfcheck" target
> already using cgcc. We still need to fix the breakage.
> 
> Any suggestion how to test sparse running on other platform headfile
> without have to get access to ppc64 for example? I think that is the biggest
> obstacle right now. I can make some changes, but I don't have a good way
> to test it other than x86 platform.

There is https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ which would give you
the possibility to access some Debian machines. Other than that I intend
to upload 0.5.1 to Debian soon and then can provide you links to build
failures in the build server farm :-) And if you have a patch, I can
volunteer to make the test monkey for you.

> >  d) fix the test suite, at least mark the tests that are expected to
> >     fail on !x86 as such to make $(make check) succeed. (Otherwise I'd
> >     have to disable or ignore the testsuite which isn't that great.)
> 
> We can make the test-suite not depend on system header files.
> That seems to be the right think to do. I also send out a patch
> to let the llvm back end test-suite use cgcc last week. Removing
> system header usage in test suite is better.

Testing that patch is on my todo list.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> There is https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ which would give you
> the possibility to access some Debian machines. Other than that I intend

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the pointer of the guest account.

> to upload 0.5.1 to Debian soon and then can provide you links to build
> failures in the build server farm :-) And if you have a patch, I can
> volunteer to make the test monkey for you.

BTW, if I want to get a PPC64 machine for Linux testing purpose, is the
used apple G5 a good place to start?

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 01:59:47AM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> > There is https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ which would give you
> > the possibility to access some Debian machines. Other than that I intend
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the pointer of the guest account.

Tell me if you want to do that. And plan for a delay because there is
some "paper work" to be done before; mainly by other people, so it might
(or might not) take a moment.

> > to upload 0.5.1 to Debian soon and then can provide you links to build
> > failures in the build server farm :-) And if you have a patch, I can
> > volunteer to make the test monkey for you.
> 
> BTW, if I want to get a PPC64 machine for Linux testing purpose, is the
> used apple G5 a good place to start?

Honestly I don't know. https://wiki.debian.org/ppc64el tells

	Debian/ppc64el requires, at minimum, a POWER8 processor machine.
	Although Debian was initially bootstrapped on a POWER7 set of
	servers. this class of server is not supported anymore, and you
	are not able to run Debian/ppc64el on a POWER7 processor without
	hitting an illegal instruction fault.

Hm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8 tells:

	Systems based on POWER8 became available from IBM in June
	2014. Systems and POWER8 processor designs made by other
	OpenPOWER members was available in early 2015.

So I think this rules out a G5.

https://wiki.debian.org/ppc64el/Installation mentions you can run this
under qemu however.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Christopher Li]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>> BTW, if I want to get a PPC64 machine for Linux testing purpose, is the
>> used apple G5 a good place to start?
>
> Honestly I don't know. https://wiki.debian.org/ppc64el tells
>
>         Debian/ppc64el requires, at minimum, a POWER8 processor machine.
>         Although Debian was initially bootstrapped on a POWER7 set of
>         servers. this class of server is not supported anymore, and you
>         are not able to run Debian/ppc64el on a POWER7 processor without
>         hitting an illegal instruction fault.
>
> Hm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8 tells:
>
>         Systems based on POWER8 became available from IBM in June
>         2014. Systems and POWER8 processor designs made by other
>         OpenPOWER members was available in early 2015.
>
> So I think this rules out a G5.

Thanks for the tip. I am glad I asked before I pull the trigger.

> https://wiki.debian.org/ppc64el/Installation mentions you can run this
> under qemu however.

Good idea. I will give that a try too.

Chris

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2674 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:47:55PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-> Yes
> that works. So to address the Debian bug I can do:
> >
> >  - move sparse to /usr/lib
> >  - teach cgcc about the move of sparse
> >  - make /usr/bin/sparse call cgcc -no-compile "$@"
> 
> I don't like that. It means the user can't invoke sparse directly.
> 
> >
> > or is it easier to teach sparse about the architecture stuff?
> 
> First of all. It is not very trivial to teach sparse about the architecture
> stuff. To my mind, we need to move all the cgcc logic into sparse.
> 
> For this case, I think it is easier to teach the sparse validation
> code to use cgcc on those back end testing. Most validation don't
> need to include system header file at all so it does not have
> this problem.
> 
> How about this patch?
> I know my patch is white space damaged in email.
> Git branch is at:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/chrisl/sparse.git/log/?h=llvm-cgcc
> 
> Please let me know if that fix your problem. It pass check
> on my local machine running x86_64. I don't have ppc64 to
> test with.
> 
> Chris
> 
> diff --git a/sparsec b/sparsec
> index 9dc96c9..2990d26 100755
> --- a/sparsec
> +++ b/sparsec
> @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ done
>  TMPLLVM=`mktemp -t tmp.XXXXXX`".llvm"
>  TMPFILE=`mktemp -t tmp.XXXXXX`".o"
> 
> -$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $SPARSEOPTS > $TMPLLVM
> +env CHECK=$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $DIRNAME/cgcc -no-compile \
> +       $SPARSEOPTS > $TMPLLVM
> 
>  LLC=`"${LLVM_CONFIG:-llvm-config}" --bindir`/llc
> 
> diff --git a/sparsei b/sparsei
> index 3431a9f..3abd00f 100755
> --- a/sparsei
> +++ b/sparsei
> @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
>    exit 1
>  fi
> 
> -$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $@ | $LLI
> +env CHECK=$DIRNAME/sparse-llvm $DIRNAME/cgcc -no-compile $@ | $LLI

I tried this on ppc64le and it fixes 2 tests, so were at

	Out of 287 tests, 273 passed, 14 failed (10 of them are known to fail)

The repaired tests are:

	backend/hello.c
	backend/sum.c

unexpected failures are:

	backend/arithmetic-ops.c
	backend/cmp-ops.c
	backend/int-cond.c
	backend/logical-ops.c

These are not about missing preprocessor tokens as there are no system
includes used, but the error there is

	Error: unrecognized opcode: `...`

. I didn't look into what the problem is there, but attached the test
log.

I did a build test on a few other Debian machines, arm64 was fine, mips
and mipx64el had 15 failures, ppc64 (i.e. big endian) had 12. I didn't
look in more detail and suggest to tackle one after the other :-)

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #1.2: buildlog --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 21705 bytes --]

I: Started sh -c make && make check
O: make: Nothing to be done for 'all'.
O:      TEST    Woverride-init-def (Woverride-init-def.c)
O:      TEST    Woverride-init-no (Woverride-init-no.c)
O:      TEST    Woverride-init-yes (Woverride-init-yes.c)
O:      TEST    warn-unknown-attribute (Wunknown-attribute-def.c)
O:      TEST    warn-unknown-attribute-no (Wunknown-attribute-no.c)
O:      TEST    warn-unknown-attribute-yes (Wunknown-attribute-yes.c)
O:      TEST    __func__ (__func__.c)
O:      TEST    abstract array declarator static (abstract-array-declarator-static.c)
O:      TEST    address_space attribute (address_space.c)
O:      TEST    alias distinct symbols (alias-distinct.c)
O:      TEST    alias symbol/pointer (alias-mixed.c)
O:      TEST    alias same symbols (alias-same.c)
O:      TEST    attribute __alloc_align__ (alloc-align.c)
O:      TEST    alternate keywords (alternate-keywords.c)
O:      TEST    test anonymous union initializer (anon-union.c)
O:      TEST    Asm with goto labels. (asm-empty-clobber.c)
O:      TEST    Asm with goto labels. (asm-goto-lables.c)
O:      TEST    asm-toplevel.c (asm-toplevel.c)
O:      TEST    inline attributes (attr-inline.c)
O:      TEST    attribute no_sanitize_address (attr-no_sanitize_address.c)
O:      TEST    attribute noclone (attr-noclone.c)
O:      TEST    optimize attributes (attr-optimize.c)
O:      TEST    attribute warning (attr-warning.c)
O:      TEST    attribute assume_aligned (attr_aligned.c)
O:      TEST    attribute after ( in direct-declarator (attr_in_parameter.c)
O:      TEST    attribute vector_size (attr_vector_size.c)
O:      TEST    Arithmetic operator code generation (backend/arithmetic-ops.c)
O: error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
O: error: see backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
O: --- backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.expected	2017-09-09 20:44:47.964306005 +0000
O: +++ backend/arithmetic-ops.c.error.got	2017-09-09 20:44:47.960305943 +0000
O: @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
O: +{standard input}: Assembler messages:
O: +{standard input}:38: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsaddsp'
O: +{standard input}:52: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsadddp'
O: +{standard input}:94: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xssubsp'
O: +{standard input}:108: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xssubdp'
O: +{standard input}:150: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsmulsp'
O: +{standard input}:164: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsmuldp'
O: +{standard input}:206: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsdivsp'
O: +{standard input}:220: Error: unrecognized opcode: `xsdivdp'
O: +mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.8axUUC.o': No such file or directory
O:      TEST    Array code generation (backend/array.c)
O:      TEST    Bitwise operator code generation (backend/bitwise-ops.c)
O:      TEST    Boolean type code generation (backend/bool-test.c)
O:      TEST    Cast code generation (backend/cast.c)
O:      TEST    Comparison operator code generation (backend/cmp-ops.c)
O: error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
O: error: see backend/cmp-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
O: --- backend/cmp-ops.c.error.expected	2017-09-09 20:44:48.320311523 +0000
O: +++ backend/cmp-ops.c.error.got	2017-09-09 20:44:48.316311461 +0000
O: @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
O: +{standard input}: Assembler messages:
O: +{standard input}:13: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:29: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:46: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:63: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:79: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:95: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:112: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:129: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:145: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:161: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:178: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:194: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:211: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:228: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:245: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:262: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.DoTA0H.o': No such file or directory
O:      TEST    Extern symbol code generation (backend/extern.c)
O:      TEST    Function pointer code generation (backend/function-ptr.c)
O:      TEST    'hello, world' code generation (backend/hello.c)
O:      TEST    Non-bool condition values in branch/select (backend/int-cond.c)
O: error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
O: error: see backend/int-cond.c.error.* for further investigation.
O: --- backend/int-cond.c.error.expected	2017-09-09 20:44:48.572315429 +0000
O: +++ backend/int-cond.c.error.got	2017-09-09 20:44:48.568315367 +0000
O: @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
O: +{standard input}: Assembler messages:
O: +{standard input}:11: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:26: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.ytNQ13.o': No such file or directory
O:      TEST    Type of loaded objects (backend/load-type.c)
O:      TEST    Logical operator code generation (backend/logical-ops.c)
O: error: actual error text does not match expected error text.
O: error: see backend/logical-ops.c.error.* for further investigation.
O: --- backend/logical-ops.c.error.expected	2017-09-09 20:44:48.696317351 +0000
O: +++ backend/logical-ops.c.error.got	2017-09-09 20:44:48.692317289 +0000
O: @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
O: +{standard input}: Assembler messages:
O: +{standard input}:14: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +{standard input}:32: Error: unrecognized opcode: `isel'
O: +mv: cannot stat '/tmp/tmp.onWlTP.o': No such file or directory
O:      TEST    Loops (backend/loop.c)
O:      TEST    Loops with unused counter (backend/loop2.c)
O:      TEST    Pointer cast code generation (backend/ptrcast.c)
O:      TEST    Type of stored objects (backend/store-type.c)
O:      TEST    struct access code generation (backend/struct-access.c)
O:      TEST    Struct code generation (backend/struct.c)
O:      TEST    sum from 1 to n (backend/sum.c)
O:      TEST    Union code generation (backend/union.c)
O:      TEST    void return type code generation (backend/void-return-type.c)
O:      TEST    Bad array designated initializer (bad-array-designated-initializer.c)
O:      TEST    bad assignment (bad-assignment.c)
O:      TEST    Bad cast syntax (bad-cast.c)
O:      TEST    Bad ternary syntax (bad-ternary-cond.c)
O:      TEST    Bad typeof syntax segfault (bad-typeof.c)
O:      TEST    enum not in scope (badtype1.c)
O: info: test 'badtype1.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    missing type (badtype2.c)
O:      TEST    missing type in argument list (badtype3.c)
O:      TEST    switch(bad_type) {...} segfault (badtype4.c)
O:      TEST    badtype5.c (badtype5.c)
O:      TEST    binary constant (binary-constant.c)
O:      TEST    bitfield size (bitfield-size.c)
O:      TEST    bitfield to integer promotion (bitfields.c)
O:      TEST    conversions to bitwise types (bitwise-cast.c)
O:      TEST    sizeof(bool array) (bool-array.c)
O:      TEST    bool-cast-bad.c (bool-cast-bad.c)
O:      TEST    bool-cast-explicit (bool-cast-explicit.c)
O:      TEST    bool-cast-implicit (bool-cast-implicit.c)
O:      TEST    bool-cast-restricted.c (bool-cast-restricted.c)
O:      TEST    constant folding in bswap builtins (bswap-constant-folding.c)
O:      TEST    inlining switch statement (bug_inline_switch.c)
O:      TEST    builtin-args-checking (builtin-args-checking.c)
O:      TEST    builtin-bswap-constant (builtin-bswap-constant.c)
O:      TEST    builtin-bswap (builtin-bswap-variable.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_atomic (builtin_atomic.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_bswap (builtin_bswap.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin INFINITY / nan() (builtin_inf.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_safe (builtin_safe1.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_unreachable() (builtin_unreachable.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_va_arg_pack() (builtin_va_arg_pack.c)
O:      TEST    c11-alignas (c11-alignas.c)
O:      TEST    c11-alignof (c11-alignof.c)
O:      TEST    c11-noreturn (c11-noreturn.c)
O:      TEST    c11-stdc-version (c11-stdc-version.c)
O:      TEST    c11-thread-local (c11-thread-local.c)
O:      TEST    C99 for-loop declarations (c99-for-loop-decl.c)
O:      TEST    C99 for loop variable declaration (c99-for-loop.c)
O:      TEST    Calling convention attributes (calling-convention-attributes.c)
O:      TEST    cast-constant-to-float (cast-constant-to-float.c)
O:      TEST    cast-constants.c (cast-constants.c)
O:      TEST    cast-kinds (cast-kinds.c)
O:      TEST    Segfault in check_byte_count after syntax error (check_byte_count-ice.c)
O:      TEST    choose expr builtin (choose_expr.c)
O:      TEST    Comma and array decay (comma.c)
O:      TEST    Compare null pointer constant to int (compare-null-to-int.c)
O:      TEST    compound-assign-type (compound-assign-type.c)
O:      TEST    cond-address-array.c (cond-address-array.c)
O:      TEST    cond-address-function (cond-address-function.c)
O:      TEST    cond-address.c (cond-address.c)
O:      TEST    cond-err-expand.c (cond-err-expand.c)
O:      TEST    Two-argument conditional expression types (cond_expr.c)
O:      TEST    type of conditional expression (cond_expr2.c)
O:      TEST    result type of relational and logical operators (cond_expr3.c)
O:      TEST    conditional-type (conditional-type.c)
O:      TEST    address of static object's member constness verification. (constexpr-addr-of-static-member.c)
O:      TEST    address of static object constness verification. (constexpr-addr-of-static.c)
O:      TEST    Expression constness propagation in binops and alike (constexpr-binop.c)
O:      TEST    Expression constness propagation in casts (constexpr-cast.c)
O:      TEST    compound literal address constness verification (constexpr-compound-literal.c)
O:      TEST    Expression constness propagation in conditional expressions (constexpr-conditional.c)
O:      TEST    static storage object initializer constness verification. (constexpr-init.c)
O:      TEST    label reference constness verification. (constexpr-labelref.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_offsetof() constness verification. (constexpr-offsetof.c)
O:      TEST    pointer arithmetic constness verification. (constexpr-pointer-arith.c)
O:      TEST    integer literal cast to pointer type constness verification. (constexpr-pointer-cast.c)
O:      TEST    Expression constness propagation in preops (constexpr-preop.c)
O:      TEST    constness of pure/const builtins (constexpr-pure-builtin.c)
O:      TEST    string literal constness verification. (constexpr-string.c)
O:      TEST    __builtin_types_compatible_p() constness verification. (constexpr-types-compatible-p.c)
O:      TEST    Check -Wcontext (context.c)
O:      TEST    crash add-doms (crash-add-doms.c)
O:      TEST    crash bb_target (crash-bb_target.c)
O:      TEST    crash ep->active (crash-ep-active.c)
O:      TEST    crash ptrlist (crash-ptrlist.c)
O:      TEST    crash rewrite_branch (crash-rewrite-branch.c)
O:      TEST    crazy02-not-so.c (crazy02-not-so.c)
O:      TEST    crazy03.c (crazy03.c)
O:      TEST    declaration after statement (ANSI) (declaration-after-statement-ansi.c)
O:      TEST    declaration after statement (C89) (declaration-after-statement-c89.c)
O:      TEST    declaration after statement (C99) (declaration-after-statement-c99.c)
O:      TEST    declaration after statement (default) (declaration-after-statement-default.c)
O:      TEST    finding definitions (definitions.c)
O:      TEST    designated_init attribute (designated-init.c)
O:      TEST    discarded-label-statement (discarded-label-statement.c)
O:      TEST    division constants (div.c)
O:      TEST    Double semicolon in struct (double-semicolon.c)
O:      TEST    Dubious bitwise operation on !x (dubious-bitwise-with-not.c)
O:      TEST    endian-big.c (endian-big.c)
O:      TEST    endian-little.c (endian-little.c)
O:      TEST    enum-mismatch (enum-mismatch.c)
O:      TEST    enumeration constants' scope [6.2.1p7] (enum_scope.c)
O:      TEST    Character escape sequences (escapes.c)
O:      TEST    duplicate extern array (extern-array.c)
O:      TEST    extern inline function (extern-inline.c)
O:      TEST    field overlap (field-overlap.c)
O:      TEST    field-override (field-override.c)
O:      TEST    Forced function argument type. (fored_arg.c)
O:      TEST    foul bitwise (foul-bitwise.c)
O:      TEST    fp-vs-ptrcast (fp-vs-ptrcast.c)
O:      TEST    Function pointer inheritance (function-pointer-inheritance.c)
O:      TEST    function-redecl (function-redecl.c)
O:      TEST    goto labels (goto-label.c)
O:      TEST    identifier-list parsing (identifier_list.c)
O:      TEST    implicit-ret-type.c (implicit-ret-type.c)
O:      TEST    implicit-type.c (implicit-type.c)
O:      TEST    internal infinite loop (0) (infinite-loop0.c)
O:      TEST    infinite loop 02 (infinite-loop02.c)
O:      TEST    infinite loop 03 (infinite-loop03.c)
O:      TEST    char array initializers (init-char-array.c)
O:      TEST    parenthesized string initializer (init-char-array1.c)
O:      TEST    -Winit-cstring option (init_cstring.c)
O:      TEST    Initializer entry defined twice (initializer-entry-defined-twice.c)
O:      TEST    inline compound literals (inline_compound_literals.c)
O:      TEST    int128 (int128.c)
O:      TEST    Integer promotions (integer-promotions.c)
O:      TEST    integer constant & conditional expression (ioc-typecheck.c)
O: info: test 'ioc-typecheck.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    kill-casts (kill-casts.c)
O:      TEST    kill-computedgoto (kill-computedgoto.c)
O:      TEST    kill-cse (kill-cse.c)
O:      TEST    kill insert-branch (kill-insert-branch.c)
O:      TEST    kill-load (kill-load.c)
O:      TEST    kill-phi-node (kill-phi-node.c)
O:      TEST    kill-phi-ttsbb (kill-phi-ttsbb.c)
O:      TEST    kill-phi-ttsbb2 (kill-phi-ttsbb2.c)
O:      TEST    kill-phisrc (kill-phisrc.c)
O:      TEST    kill-pure-call (kill-pure-call.c)
O:      TEST    kill-replaced-insn (kill-replaced-insn.c)
O:      TEST    kill-rewritten-load (kill-rewritten-load.c)
O:      TEST    kill-select (kill-select.c)
O:      TEST    kill-slice (kill-slice.c)
O:      TEST    kill-store (kill-store.c)
O:      TEST    kill-unreachable-phi (kill-unreachable-phi.c)
O:      TEST    Label followed by __asm__ (label-asm.c)
O:      TEST    Label attribute (label-attr.c)
O:      TEST    label-expr (label-expr.c)
O:      TEST    __label__ scope (label-scope.c)
O:      TEST    bitfield initializer mask (linear/bitfield-init-mask.c)
O:      TEST    bitfield implicit init zero (linear/bitfield-init-zero.c)
O:      TEST    missing instruction's size (linear/missing-insn-size.c)
O:      TEST    struct implicit init zero not needed (linear/struct-init-full.c)
O: info: test 'linear/struct-init-full.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    struct implicit init zero needed (linear/struct-init-partial.c)
O:      TEST    Local label (local-label.c)
O:      TEST    Logical and/or (logical.c)
O:      TEST    loop-linearization (loop-linearization.c)
O:      TEST    Expansion of typeof when dealing with member of struct (member_of_typeof.c)
O:      TEST    memops-volatile (memops-volatile.c)
O:      TEST    handling of identifier-less declarations (missing-ident.c)
O:      TEST    typedefs with many declarators (multi_typedef.c)
O:      TEST    nested declarator vs. parameters (nested-declarator.c)
O:      TEST    more on handling of ( in direct-declarator (nested-declarator2.c)
O:      TEST    nocast.c (nocast.c)
O:      TEST    noderef attribute (noderef.c)
O:      TEST    Using plain integer as NULL pointer (non-pointer-null.c)
O:      TEST    Old initializer with -Wno-old-initializer (old-initializer-nowarn.c)
O:      TEST    Old initializer (old-initializer.c)
O:      TEST    double-unop (optim/binops-same-args.c)
O:      TEST    bool-context (optim/bool-context.c)
O:      TEST    bool-same-args (optim/bool-same-args.c)
O:      TEST    bool-simplify (optim/bool-simplify.c)
O:      TEST    cse-commutativity (optim/cse-commutativity.c)
O:      TEST    cse-dual-compare (optim/cse-dual-compare.c)
O: info: test 'optim/cse-dual-compare.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    double-unop (optim/double-unop.c)
O:      TEST    fpcast-nop (optim/fpcast-nop.c)
O:      TEST    muldiv-by-one (optim/muldiv-by-one.c)
O:      TEST    muldiv-by-zero (optim/muldiv-by-zero.c)
O:      TEST    muldiv-minus-one (optim/muldiv-minus-one.c)
O:      TEST    optim/setcc-setcc (optim/setcc-setcc.c)
O:      TEST    optim/setcc-seteq (optim/setcc-seteq.c)
O:      TEST    optim/setcc-setne (optim/setcc-setne.c)
O:      TEST    Ignore VOID in if-convert (optim/void-if-convert.c)
O:      TEST    There is no scope boundary between global and file scope (outer-scope.c)
O:      TEST    #pragma once (pragma-once.c)
O:      TEST    __COUNTER__ #1 (preprocessor/counter1.c)
O:      TEST    __COUNTER__ #2 (preprocessor/counter2.c)
O:      TEST    __COUNTER__ #3 (preprocessor/counter3.c)
O:      TEST    dump-macros with empty file (preprocessor/dump-macros-empty.c)
O:      TEST    dump-macros with multiple files (preprocessor/dump-macros-multi.c)
O:      TEST    dump-macros (preprocessor/dump-macros.c)
O:      TEST    early-escape (preprocessor/early-escape.c)
O:      TEST    predefined __<type>_BIT__ (preprocessor/predef-char-bit.c)
O:      TEST    predefined __<type>_MAX__ (preprocessor/predef-max.c)
O:      TEST    predefined __SIZEOF_<type>__ (preprocessor/predef-sizeof.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #1 (preprocessor/preprocessor1.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #10 (preprocessor/preprocessor10.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #11 (preprocessor/preprocessor11.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #12 (preprocessor/preprocessor12.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #13 (preprocessor/preprocessor13.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #14 (preprocessor/preprocessor14.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #15 (preprocessor/preprocessor15.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #16 (preprocessor/preprocessor16.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #17 (preprocessor/preprocessor17.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #18 (preprocessor/preprocessor18.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #19 (preprocessor/preprocessor19.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #2 (preprocessor/preprocessor2.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #20 (preprocessor/preprocessor20.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #21 (preprocessor/preprocessor21.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #22 (preprocessor/preprocessor22.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #23 (preprocessor/preprocessor23.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #3 (preprocessor/preprocessor3.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #4 (preprocessor/preprocessor4.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #5 (preprocessor/preprocessor5.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #6 (preprocessor/preprocessor6.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #7 (preprocessor/preprocessor7.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #8 (preprocessor/preprocessor8.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #9 (preprocessor/preprocessor9.c)
O:      TEST    Preprocessor #14 (preprocessor/stringify.c)
O:      TEST    wide char token-pasting (preprocessor/wide.c)
O:      TEST    Compile skip function prototype (prototype.c)
O:      TEST    ptr-inherit.c (ptr-inherit.c)
O:      TEST    Pure function attribute (pure-function.c)
O:      TEST    const et.al. are reserved identifiers (reserved.c)
O:      TEST    restrict array attribute (restrict-array.c)
O:      TEST    typeof with bitwise types (restricted-typeof.c)
O:      TEST    sizeof(_Bool) is valid (sizeof-bool.c)
O:      TEST    Handling of sizeof compound-literal . member (sizeof-compound-postfix.c)
O:      TEST    valid specifier combinations (specifiers1.c)
O:      TEST    invalid specifier combinations (specifiers2.c)
O:      TEST    static forward declaration (static-forward-decl.c)
O:      TEST    static assertion (static_assert.c)
O:      TEST    Address space of a struct member (struct-as.c)
O:      TEST    struct attribute placement (struct-attribute-placement.c)
O:      TEST    struct namespaces #1 (struct-ns1.c)
O:      TEST    struct not in scope (struct-ns2.c)
O: info: test 'struct-ns2.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    struct size (struct-size1.c)
O:      TEST    tautological-compare (tautological-compare.c)
O:      TEST    binary operations (test-be.c)
O:      TEST    selfcheck1 (testsuite-selfcheck1.c)
O:      TEST    selfcheck2 (testsuite-selfcheck2.c)
O: info: test 'testsuite-selfcheck2.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    selfcheck3 (testsuite-selfcheck3.c)
O: info: test 'testsuite-selfcheck3.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    Transparent union attribute. (transparent-union.c)
O:      TEST    "char []" to "char *" demotion (type1.c)
O:      TEST    typedef shadowing (typedef_shadow.c)
O:      TEST    typeof-addresspace.c (typeof-addresspace.c)
O: info: test 'typeof-addresspace.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    Rusty Russell's typeof attribute casting. (typeof-attribute.c)
O:      TEST    typeof-mods (typeof-mods.c)
O:      TEST    typeof-noderef (typeof-noderef.c)
O: info: test 'typeof-noderef.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    typeof-safe (typeof-safe.c)
O: info: test 'typeof-safe.c' is known to fail
O:      TEST    -Wtypesign (typesign.c)
O:      TEST    Varargs bogus warning regression test #1 (varargs1.c)
O:      TEST    wide character constants (wide.c)
E: make: *** [check] Error 1
O: Out of 287 tests, 273 passed, 14 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
O: Makefile:232: recipe for target 'check' failed
I: Finished with exitcode 2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>
> I tried this on ppc64le and it fixes 2 tests, so were at
>
>         Out of 287 tests, 273 passed, 14 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
>
> The repaired tests are:
>
>         backend/hello.c
>         backend/sum.c
>
> unexpected failures are:
>
>         backend/arithmetic-ops.c
>         backend/cmp-ops.c
>         backend/int-cond.c
>         backend/logical-ops.c
>
> These are not about missing preprocessor tokens as there are no system
> includes used, but the error there is
>
>         Error: unrecognized opcode: `...`
>
> . I didn't look into what the problem is there, but attached the test
> log.

It clearly looks as the code generated by LLVM  (the machine code/assembly
not LLVM's bytecode) is not understood by the assembler (or at least some
instructions). Probably a mismatch with the architecture version or something
like that.

> I did a build test on a few other Debian machines, arm64 was fine, mips
> and mipx64el had 15 failures, ppc64 (i.e. big endian) had 12. I didn't
> look in more detail and suggest to tackle one after the other :-)

I fully test on x86, x86-64, arm & ARM64 (with LLVM 3.9 or 4.0).
I also test on ppc64 but not the LLVM part because the machines I have
access to have not LLVM installed and I never bothered to install it myself.

Would it be possible to have access to a machine with the architectures
you care about?

Meanwhile, is it possible to have the build logs but with 'make V=1 ...' ?
It would also be useful to have:
- the output of 'uname -a'
- the details about the version of LLVM you're using

On the other hand, you/us should disable the sparse-llvm part since:
- it's something that is bundled and build by default but absolutely not
  needed (or even useful) to use sparse.
- it hasn't been written for anything else than x86/x86-64 (no 'layout'
  for anything else than those architectures.

Best regards,
-- Luc Van Ooostenryck

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2554 bytes --]

On 09/10/2017 03:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>>
>> I tried this on ppc64le and it fixes 2 tests, so were at
>>
>>         Out of 287 tests, 273 passed, 14 failed (10 of them are known to fail)
>>
>> The repaired tests are:
>>
>>         backend/hello.c
>>         backend/sum.c
>>
>> unexpected failures are:
>>
>>         backend/arithmetic-ops.c
>>         backend/cmp-ops.c
>>         backend/int-cond.c
>>         backend/logical-ops.c
>>
>> These are not about missing preprocessor tokens as there are no system
>> includes used, but the error there is
>>
>>         Error: unrecognized opcode: `...`
>>
>> . I didn't look into what the problem is there, but attached the test
>> log.
> 
> It clearly looks as the code generated by LLVM  (the machine code/assembly
> not LLVM's bytecode) is not understood by the assembler (or at least some
> instructions). Probably a mismatch with the architecture version or something
> like that.
> 
>> I did a build test on a few other Debian machines, arm64 was fine, mips
>> and mipx64el had 15 failures, ppc64 (i.e. big endian) had 12. I didn't
>> look in more detail and suggest to tackle one after the other :-)
> 
> I fully test on x86, x86-64, arm & ARM64 (with LLVM 3.9 or 4.0).
> I also test on ppc64 but not the LLVM part because the machines I have
> access to have not LLVM installed and I never bothered to install it myself.
> 
> Would it be possible to have access to a machine with the architectures
> you care about?

Debian provides access to porter boxes for such problems. See
https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/.

> Meanwhile, is it possible to have the build logs but with 'make V=1 ...' ?
> It would also be useful to have:
> - the output of 'uname -a'
> - the details about the version of LLVM you're using

Sure, can do. Attached is a build from the ppc64el machine with Chris'
patch applied. Tell me if it contains everything you need.

> On the other hand, you/us should disable the sparse-llvm part since:
> - it's something that is bundled and build by default but absolutely not
>   needed (or even useful) to use sparse.
> - it hasn't been written for anything else than x86/x86-64 (no 'layout'
>   for anything else than those architectures.

With your patch applied I get (independent of having Chris' patch
applied or not):

	Out of 265 tests, 255 passed, 10 failed (10 of them are known to fail)

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: buildlog-23a393b1cd48ea50bff94fa4a1e2c02a5d78d9cb+ --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 57588 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
<uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
> On 09/10/2017 03:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>
>> I fully test on x86, x86-64, arm & ARM64 (with LLVM 3.9 or 4.0).
>> I also test on ppc64 but not the LLVM part because the machines I have
>> access to have not LLVM installed and I never bothered to install it myself.
>>
>> Would it be possible to have access to a machine with the architectures
>> you care about?
>
> Debian provides access to porter boxes for such problems. See
> https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/.

OK.
I'll first try to install LLVM on what I have already access, it
should be faster.

>> Meanwhile, is it possible to have the build logs but with 'make V=1 ...' ?
>> It would also be useful to have:
>> - the output of 'uname -a'
>> - the details about the version of LLVM you're using
>
> Sure, can do. Attached is a build from the ppc64el machine with Chris'
> patch applied. Tell me if it contains everything you need.

Yes, enough to investigate the problem. Thanks.

>> On the other hand, you/us should disable the sparse-llvm part since:
>> - it's something that is bundled and build by default but absolutely not
>>   needed (or even useful) to use sparse.
>> - it hasn't been written for anything else than x86/x86-64 (no 'layout'
>>   for anything else than those architectures.
>
> With your patch applied I get (independent of having Chris' patch
> applied or not):
>
>         Out of 265 tests, 255 passed, 10 failed (10 of them are known to fail)

Perfect.
With this, you should be unblocked.

@Chris,
can you apply the patch, please?


Best regards,
-- Luc Van Oostenryck

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
<uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, is it possible to have the build logs but with 'make V=1 ...' ?
>> It would also be useful to have:
>> - the output of 'uname -a'
>> - the details about the version of LLVM you're using
>
> Sure, can do. Attached is a build from the ppc64el machine with Chris'
> patch applied. Tell me if it contains everything you need.

I've taken a look at it what happens.
The problem is easy to identify and very annoying to solve:
in sparsec (a wrapper for sparse-llvm + llc + as [+ ld]) there
is a discrepancy between the defaults for llc and as.
'llc' seems to default to the sub-architecture of the build machine
(possibly including the most modern features) while 'as' defaults
to the minimal features for the build machine architecture.

The problem can be solved (on the machine I have access to) by either:
- using the option "-mgeneric" for llc
- using the option "-mpower8" for as

Something smarter would be better.

-- Luc

[PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

sparse-llvm doesn't have support for targets other than
x86 or x86-64.

Disable sparse-llvm on other archs as it create problems during
build, selftest, ...

Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
---
 Makefile | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 84bb133da..d51b60733 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ $(warning Your system does not have gtk3/gtk2, disabling test-inspect)
 endif
 
 ifeq ($(HAVE_LLVM),yes)
+ifeq ($(shell uname -m | grep -q '\(i386\|x86\)' && echo ok),ok)
 LLVM_VERSION:=$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --version)
 ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
 LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
@@ -106,6 +107,9 @@ else
 $(warning LLVM 3.0 or later required. Your system has version $(LLVM_VERSION) installed.)
 endif
 else
+$(warning sparse-llvm disabled on $(shell uname -m))
+endif
+else
 $(warning Your system does not have llvm, disabling sparse-llvm)
 endif
 
-- 
2.14.0

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
> sparse-llvm doesn't have support for targets other than
> x86 or x86-64.
>
> Disable sparse-llvm on other archs as it create problems during
> build, selftest, ...

Thanks, will apply.

This is temporary while we looking at how to fix the other
architecture properly, right?

Chris

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sparse-llvm doesn't have support for targets other than
>> x86 or x86-64.
>>
>> Disable sparse-llvm on other archs as it create problems during
>> build, selftest, ...
>
> Thanks, will apply.
>
> This is temporary while we looking at how to fix the other
> architecture properly, right?

Everything is temporary, isn't it? ;)

In the other thread I explained the nature of the problem, it's *just* a
question to match the options for the model/sub-architecture between
LLVM compiler and the assembler.
Easy to do if you choose the dumbest (generic) model, pretty annoying
otherwise and a nightmare to test.

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everything is temporary, isn't it? ;)
>

Of course :-)

> In the other thread I explained the nature of the problem, it's *just* a
> question to match the options for the model/sub-architecture between
> LLVM compiler and the assembler.
> Easy to do if you choose the dumbest (generic) model, pretty annoying
> otherwise and a nightmare to test.

Yes, I saw the other email you have it pretty much figure out
already. I am tempting just pick up an used apple G5 and install
Linux on it for ppc64 testing.

Chris

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Everything is temporary, isn't it? ;)
>>
>
> Of course :-)
>
>> In the other thread I explained the nature of the problem, it's *just* a
>> question to match the options for the model/sub-architecture between
>> LLVM compiler and the assembler.
>> Easy to do if you choose the dumbest (generic) model, pretty annoying
>> otherwise and a nightmare to test.
>
> Yes, I saw the other email you have it pretty much figure out
> already. I am tempting just pick up an used apple G5 and install
> Linux on it for ppc64 testing.

It's not the problem.
I tested it on a ppc64le (power8) machine while I investigated the
problem. So let's say that it's solved/tested for ppc64. Then what
about all the other models & archs?

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not the problem.
> I tested it on a ppc64le (power8) machine while I investigated the
> problem. So let's say that it's solved/tested for ppc64. Then what
> about all the other models & archs?

For problem like this one happen on the host side of the package,
I don't have a magic solution either. I guess we will just fix the
bugs that we know. Then let other people who has the access to
those model & archs do the testing and report back.

Mean while, we can make it easy to enable and disable
llvm, similar to a config file. The user don't have to patch
sparse in order to disable sparse-llvm compiling.

Chris

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not the problem.
>> I tested it on a ppc64le (power8) machine while I investigated the
>> problem. So let's say that it's solved/tested for ppc64. Then what
>> about all the other models & archs?
>
> For problem like this one happen on the host side of the package,
> I don't have a magic solution either. I guess we will just fix the
> bugs that we know. Then let other people who has the access to
> those model & archs do the testing and report back.
>
> Mean while, we can make it easy to enable and disable
> llvm, similar to a config file. The user don't have to patch
> sparse in order to disable sparse-llvm compiling.

Hence the patch.
I think you should take it for master.

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hence the patch.
> I think you should take it for master.
>

Sure, I want to.

There is some minor feed back on testing of the compiling
LLVM or not. It is just which path we take to apply it.

Chris

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  ifeq ($(HAVE_LLVM),yes)
> +ifeq ($(shell uname -m | grep -q '\(i386\|x86\)' && echo ok),ok)
>  LLVM_VERSION:=$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --version)
>  ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
>  LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
> @@ -106,6 +107,9 @@ else
>  $(warning LLVM 3.0 or later required. Your system has version $(LLVM_VERSION) installed.)
>  endif
>  else
> +$(warning sparse-llvm disabled on $(shell uname -m))
> +endif
> +else
>  $(warning Your system does not have llvm, disabling sparse-llvm)
>  endif
>

BTW, while I am looking at this, I think the if else testing is getting
a bit too deep for the rules define of sparse-llvm.
Right now we have three excuses not to compile llvm:
1) not x86,
2) LLVM version too old
3) Host does not have llvm.
All of those testing mixing with the actual llvm rules and flags.

I think we can test three level of excuses first, then come to
conclusion of ENABLE_LLVM(or CONFIG_LLVM) or not.

The rules that define sparse-llvm related stuff should just
put inside one level of ENABLE_LLVM.
some thing like:

ifeq ($(ENABLE_LLVM),yes)
    LLVM_LDFLAGS = ...
    other llvm flags and rules.
endif

Do you want to come up with V2? Or I can apply your current patch
first then do the incremental update on master to use ENABLE_LLVM
or CONFIG_LLVM

Which way do you prefer?

I will need to take a crash very soon. To be continue...

Chris

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  ifeq ($(HAVE_LLVM),yes)
>> +ifeq ($(shell uname -m | grep -q '\(i386\|x86\)' && echo ok),ok)
>>  LLVM_VERSION:=$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --version)
>>  ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
>>  LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
>> @@ -106,6 +107,9 @@ else
>>  $(warning LLVM 3.0 or later required. Your system has version $(LLVM_VERSION) installed.)
>>  endif
>>  else
>> +$(warning sparse-llvm disabled on $(shell uname -m))
>> +endif
>> +else
>>  $(warning Your system does not have llvm, disabling sparse-llvm)
>>  endif
>>
>
> BTW, while I am looking at this, I think the if else testing is getting
> a bit too deep for the rules define of sparse-llvm.
> Right now we have three excuses not to compile llvm:
> 1) not x86,
> 2) LLVM version too old
> 3) Host does not have llvm.
> All of those testing mixing with the actual llvm rules and flags.
>
> I think we can test three level of excuses first, then come to
> conclusion of ENABLE_LLVM(or CONFIG_LLVM) or not.
>
> The rules that define sparse-llvm related stuff should just
> put inside one level of ENABLE_LLVM.
> some thing like:
>
> ifeq ($(ENABLE_LLVM),yes)
>     LLVM_LDFLAGS = ...
>     other llvm flags and rules.
> endif
>
> Do you want to come up with V2? Or I can apply your current patch
> first then do the incremental update on master to use ENABLE_LLVM
> or CONFIG_LLVM
>
> Which way do you prefer?

Please do as is the easiest for you.
I don't mind as I don't have something that depend on it.

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please do as is the easiest for you.
> I don't mind as I don't have something that depend on it.

I have test your change does not conflict with my other Makefile
overhaul of the debug build. I already apply your patch to master.

Next thing is merge the debug build overhaul then add the config
option on top of that.

The master branch has been updated and pushed.

Thanks

Chris

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on ppc32le (and other not so common archs)

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1269 bytes --]

Hello,

On 08/30/2017 06:14 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
> common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
> nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:
>
> [..]

Just a heads up: I uploaded 0.5.2 to Debian and there are problems left
on hurd-i386 (where PATH_MAX isn't defined[1]) and x32 where I get:

	env CHECK=./sparse ./cgcc -no-compile memops.c
	/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnux32/gnu/stubs.h:10:12: error: unable to
open 'gnu/stubs-64.h'

The stubs.h file looks as follows:

#if !defined __x86_64__
# include <gnu/stubs-32.h>
#endif
#if defined __x86_64__ && defined __LP64__
# include <gnu/stubs-64.h>
#endif
#if defined __x86_64__ && defined __ILP32__
# include <gnu/stubs-x32.h>
#endif

Given that libc6-dev only provides stubs-x32.h from these three, I guess
we must not define __LP64__ in this case. I don't have a x32 machine
handy, but the complete build log of the auto builder can be found at

	https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=sparse&arch=x32&ver=0.5.2-1&stamp=1524169455&raw=0

Best regards
Uwe

[1]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=sparse&arch=hurd-i386&ver=0.5.2-1&stamp=1524168405&raw=0


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Bug#873508: sparse test failures & PATH_MAX

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:56:38AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 08/30/2017 06:14 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
> > common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
> > nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:
> >
> > [..]
> 
> Just a heads up: I uploaded 0.5.2 to Debian and there are problems left
> on hurd-i386 (where PATH_MAX isn't defined[1])
> ...
> [1]
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=sparse&arch=hurd-i386&ver=0.5.2-1&stamp=1524168405&raw=0

Thanks for the repport.
I'll see what can be done.

-- Luc

Bug#873508: sparse test failures & PATH_MAX

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On 04/27/2018 09:33 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:56:38AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 08/30/2017 06:14 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
>>> common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
>>> nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>
>> Just a heads up: I uploaded 0.5.2 to Debian and there are problems left
>> on hurd-i386 (where PATH_MAX isn't defined[1])
>> ...
>> [1]
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=sparse&arch=hurd-i386&ver=0.5.2-1&stamp=1524168405&raw=0
> 
> Thanks for the repport.
> I'll see what can be done.

I think the default idiom is:

#ifndef PATH_MAX
#define PATH_MAX 4096
#endif

Best regards
Uwe


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Bug#873508: sparse test failures & PATH_MAX

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:33:55AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On 04/27/2018 09:33 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:56:38AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>> [..]
> >>
> >> Just a heads up: I uploaded 0.5.2 to Debian and there are problems left
> >> on hurd-i386 (where PATH_MAX isn't defined[1])
> >> ...
> >> [1]
> >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=sparse&arch=hurd-i386&ver=0.5.2-1&stamp=1524168405&raw=0
> > 
> > Thanks for the repport.
> > I'll see what can be done.
> 
> I think the default idiom is:
> 
> #ifndef PATH_MAX
> #define PATH_MAX 4096
> #endif

Yes.
I had hoped to avoid this together with removing a memcpy() but things are
more annoying than I had first thought.

Best regards,
-- Luc

Bug#873508: sparse test failures on x32

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:56:38AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 08/30/2017 06:14 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Antoine Beaupre (on Cc:) noticed that sparse doesn't work on some not so
> > common architectures like ppc32le, s390x, ppc64 and sparc64[1]. This is
> > nicely catched by the testsuite, e.g.:
> >
> > [..]
> 
> Just a heads up: I uploaded 0.5.2 to Debian and there are problems left
> ...
> and x32 where I get:
> 
> 	env CHECK=./sparse ./cgcc -no-compile memops.c
> 	/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnux32/gnu/stubs.h:10:12: error: unable to
> open 'gnu/stubs-64.h'
> 
> The stubs.h file looks as follows:
> 
> #if !defined __x86_64__
> # include <gnu/stubs-32.h>
> #endif
> #if defined __x86_64__ && defined __LP64__
> # include <gnu/stubs-64.h>
> #endif
> #if defined __x86_64__ && defined __ILP32__
> # include <gnu/stubs-x32.h>
> #endif
> 
> Given that libc6-dev only provides stubs-x32.h from these three, I guess
> we must not define __LP64__ in this case.

Mmmm, yes, surely.
For the moment sparse use __LP64__ unconditionnaly for __x86_64__.

> I don't have a x32 machine

But can you launch a test build for sparse easily enough?
I guess that there is no install CD available yet?


-- Luc