Mail #13615

Zurück zur Archiv-Hauptseite

Vorige Mail   Nächste Mail   Unformatiert/Volle Header
Übersicht  10 Tage   Betreff   Datum   Thread   Autor  

Von: Gert Doering
Betreff: New (gpc-20060325)
Datum: 26.5.2006, 14:14:05

Hi Frank,

thanks for your quick reply - and sorry for being late at my end, I got
distracted by non-computer things.

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:45:06PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > I just tried it on AIX 5.3, with gcc-3.4.6, and the result is sort of
> > "mixed":
> > 
> > There is one line that needs to be changed in gcc/p/test/test_run,
> > because otherwise I'll get an error from the shell (in make check):
> > 
> > old:
> > 
> > echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo "(using GP)"; fi`"
> > 
> > new: 
> > 
> > echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo \"(using GP)\"; fi`"
> 
> What's that? The original line is:
> 
> echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo "(using GP)"; fi`"
> 
> Perhaps you unintentionally duplicated a part of it (from the
> beginning to the first "[")?

Yes.  I'm not sure how that happened, but that's what you get when using
the mouse for "insert lines of code into mail".

The (changed) line indeed looks like this:

echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo \"(using GP)\"; fi`"

> So I assume it should be changed to:
> 
> echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo \"(using GP)\"; fi`"

Yes.

> > (the change is that "(using GP)" needs extra quotes, otherwise the shell
> > will complain - this is with AIX' ksh, but as far as I know, recent bash
> > versions will be similarily picky)
> 
> Not AFAICS:
> 
> # bash --version
> GNU bash, version 3.1.0(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> # echo "`echo "foo"`"
> foo

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that the abovementioned "echo" command runs
under AIX's ksh and /bin/sh just fine - but that's to be expected, the
quotes just disappear, and then all you have left is 

 echo foo

which works :)

Things look different if you do this:

gd@hilb31:/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test> echo "`echo "(foo)"`"
ksh: 0403-057 Syntax error: `(' is not expected.
gd@hilb31:/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test> echo "`echo \"(foo)\"`"
(foo)

- but you're right, bash doesn't care one way or the other.


> I think it's not so much about being picky, but supporting a
> slightly extended syntax ("" within `` pairs, while ksh apparently
> considers the first unquoted " to be the closing one without regard
> to nesting). But anyway, the extra \'s don't hurt bash (and I hope
> no other shell either).

Unfortunately it's not so easy.  NetBSD's ksh does it just the other
way:

gert@kirk:/rhome/gert$ echo "`echo \"(foo)\"`"
/bin/ksh: syntax error: `(' unexpected
gert@kirk:/rhome/gert$ echo "`echo "(foo)"`"  
(foo)

*argh*

so maybe portable code really should avoid using the same quote character
on different levels.  Which means, the "right" thing to do would be:

echo "$PC `$PC $PFLAGS -dumpversion`, flags: $PFLAGS_NO_PATHS `if [ x"$GP" != x ]; then echo '(using GP)'; fi`"

- which seems to be fully portable to all shells I have tried.


> > After that, the test suite starts, but *all* test programs fail:
> > 
> > "gmake pascal.check-long" explains what is going wrong:
> > 
> > Test Run By gd on 2006-05-19 13:43:03
> > Native configuration is powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 (hilb31)
> > /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/xgpc -B/s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/ 20060325, based on gcc-3.4.6, flags: -g -O3 -W -Wall -Wno-unused   
> > GPC-TEST-BEGIN
> > ==========================
> > TEST    abso1.pas:      cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-fno-unit-path" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-fautobuild" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../rts" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > cc1: warning: command line option "-fexecutable-path=." is valid for Pascal but not for C
> > OK
> >
> > I'm not sure how to proceed here.  Why is it calling cc1?  Why is it passing
> > options that the backend doesn't like?  Is this something that gcc-3.4.6
> > has changed?
> 
> For debugging, you could insert an echo statement in test_run, to
> find out how exactly it invokes GPC, then try this command-line
> manually, and if it still fails, play with the options to find out
> what's causing this.
> 
> The relevant line for most test programs (including abso1) is:
> 
>     if { $PC_WITH_FLAGS -Werror "$1"; } 2>&1; then
> 
> Note there are some similar looking lines, this is line 254. So you
> could put before it:
> 
>     echo $PC_WITH_FLAGS -Werror "$1"

OK, here we go.  This is how it's called:

---PC_WITH_FLAGS---
/s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/xgpc -B/s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/ --unit-path=/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units -I /gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units -I ../rts --no-unit-path --unit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/units --autobuild   -g -O3 -W -Wall -Wno-unused   -o a.out     --unit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test --unit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../rts     --unit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../units -I /s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test -I /s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../units --executable-path=.      -Werror /s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/abso1.pas
---PC_WITH_FLAGS---

If I run that on "hello.pas" I get the same warnings from "cc1".

If I remove all "--unit-path" directives, and the "--executable-path" and 
"--no-unit-path" directives, the warnings are gone (which was to be 
expected, but isn't very enlightening).


Adding "-v" to the gpc command line suggests that the warnings might come
from "collect2":

...
GNU Pascal Compiler PreProcessor version 20060325, based on gcc-3.4.6

{$include "..."} search starts here:
{$include <...>} search starts here:
 /gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units
 ../rts
 /s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test
 /s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../units
End of search list.
 as -u -mppc -o /tmp//cchPIwsI.o /tmp//cckcaRBw.s
 /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/collect2 -bpT:0x10000000 -bpD:0x20000000 -btextro -bnodelcsect -bexport:/usr/lib/libg.exp -o a.out /lib/crt0.o -L/s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc -L/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6 -L/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/../../.. /tmp//cchPIwsI.o -lgpc -lm /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/libgcc.a /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/libgcc_eh.a -lg -lc /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/libgcc.a /s1/gpc-build-20060325-3.4.6/gcc/libgcc_eh.a
cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/gnulocal/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/3.4.6/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
cc1: warning: command line option "-fno-unit-path" is valid for Pascal but not for C
cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/units" is valid for Pascal but not for C
cc1: warning: command line option "-fautobuild" is valid for Pascal but not for C
cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test" is valid for Pascal but not for C
cc1: warning: command line option "-funit-path=/s1/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/p/test/../rts" is valid for Pascal but not for C


Which is backed by the fact that if I run GPC als "compile-only" (gpc -c),
I don't get any warnings.


I still don't understand it, though.  Where does collect2 get these options
from?  Are they included in the .o file?

> > Compiling a simple "hello,world" program works, with no warnings:
> > 
> > gd@hilb31:/tmp> gpc -Wall -o hello hello.pas   
> > gd@hilb31:/tmp> ./hello                        
> > Hello, World
> 
> BTW, you made sure this is the newly installed GPC here, not an
> older version, did you?

Yes, there was no gpc on that machine beforehand.

It has the same problems, though, when I add some of the triggering options:

gd@hilb31:/tmp> /gnulocal/bin/gpc -Wall -o hello hello.pas               
gd@hilb31:/tmp> ./hello
Hello, World

gd@hilb31:/tmp> /gnulocal/bin/gpc -Wall --no-unit-path -o hello hello.pas
cc1: warning: command line option "-fno-unit-path" is valid for Pascal but not for C
gd@hilb31:/tmp> ./hello
Hello, World


So - what can I try next?

regards,

gert

Vorige Mail   Nächste Mail   Unformatiert/Volle Header
Übersicht  10 Tage   Betreff   Datum   Thread   Autor  

Antworten auf diese Mail

Antwort auf

Zurück zur Archiv-Hauptseite

Hinweis: Diese Seite enthält Informationen, die nicht vom Betreiber dieser Website, sondern von den Autoren der archivierten Mails stammen. Der Betreiber dieser Website ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Informationen verantwortlich. Die weitere Verwendung dieser Informationen bedarf des Einverständnisses des jeweiligen Autors.

Sofern WWW-Adressen (URLs) in den archivierten Mails als Hyperlinks hervorgehoben werden, so geschieht dies ausschließlich zur Annehmlichkeit für den Leser. Der Inhalt der auf diese Weise angelinkten Webseiten spiegelt nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des Betreibers dieser Webseite oder der Autoren der archivierten Mails wider. Der Betreiber dieser Webseite ist nicht für den Inhalt solcher Webseiten verantwortlich. Diese Seiten sind ausdrücklich nicht als Teil des Inhalts dieser Seite zu betrachten, sondern lediglich als Referenzen.

Diese Seite wurde erzeugt von Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).