Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update CI workflow #5

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from
Closed

Update CI workflow #5

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

cooljeanius
Copy link
Owner

I made some improvements in my CI branch; let's merge them back

cooljeanius and others added 10 commits October 16, 2023 02:57
2 more mailer suggestions
from @ArsenArsen
ok so I guess it isn't called just "exim" exactly
exim4-base says that postfix conflicts with it
2 more mail dependencies
tweak mailx dependency
remove msmtp-mta
(conflicts with exim4-config)
try seeing if there are more ways to upload logfiles
"upload-artifact" doesn't allow relative paths, apparently
@cooljeanius
Copy link
Owner Author

cooljeanius commented Oct 17, 2023

Actually never mind; I'll just copy the file over manually (instead of trying to figure out how to resolve the merge conflicts...)

cooljeanius pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2024
Consider

  constexpr int VAL = 1;
  struct foo {
      template <int B>
      void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
  };
  template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);

where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
instantiation.  That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
finds the B==VAL template argument.  VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
which in the global scope implies static.  constrain_visibility_for_template
then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
emit any code.

I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value.  But
it turned out to be tricky.  For instance, we can't skip
determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
expressions.  For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has

  using P = struct {}*;
  template <int N>
  void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}

where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
ferret out the anonymous type.  When instantiating, it's already gone.

This patch uses decl_constant_var_p.  This is to implement (an
approximation) [basic.def.odr]#14.5.1 and [basic.def.odr]#5.2.

	PR c++/110323

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

	* decl2.cc (min_vis_expr_r) <case VAR_DECL>: Do nothing for
	decl_constant_var_p VAR_DECLs.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C: New test.
	* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C: New test.
cooljeanius pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2024
…o_debug_section [PR116614]

cat abc.C
  #define A(n) struct T##n {} t##n;
  #define B(n) A(n##0) A(n##1) A(n##2) A(n##3) A(n##4) A(n##5) A(n##6) A(n##7) A(n##8) A(n##9)
  #define C(n) B(n##0) B(n##1) B(n##2) B(n##3) B(n##4) B(n##5) B(n##6) B(n##7) B(n##8) B(n##9)
  #define D(n) C(n##0) C(n##1) C(n##2) C(n##3) C(n##4) C(n##5) C(n##6) C(n##7) C(n##8) C(n##9)
  #define E(n) D(n##0) D(n##1) D(n##2) D(n##3) D(n##4) D(n##5) D(n##6) D(n##7) D(n##8) D(n##9)
  E(1) E(2) E(3)
  int main () { return 0; }
./xg++ -B ./ -o abc{.o,.C} -flto -flto-partition=1to1 -O2 -g -fdebug-types-section -c
./xgcc -B ./ -o abc{,.o} -flto -flto-partition=1to1 -O2
(not included in testsuite as it takes a while to compile) FAILs with
lto-wrapper: fatal error: Too many copied sections: Operation not supported
compilation terminated.
/usr/bin/ld: error: lto-wrapper failed
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

The following patch fixes that.  Most of the 64K+ section support for
reading and writing was already there years ago (and especially reading used
quite often already) and a further bug fixed in it in the PR104617 fix.

Yet, the fix isn't solely about removing the
  if (new_i - 1 >= SHN_LORESERVE)
    {
      *err = ENOTSUP;
      return "Too many copied sections";
    }
5 lines, the missing part was that the function only handled reading of
the .symtab_shndx section but not copying/updating of it.
If the result has less than 64K-epsilon sections, that actually wasn't
needed, but e.g. with -fdebug-types-section one can exceed that pretty
easily (reported to us on WebKitGtk build on ppc64le).
Updating the section is slightly more complicated, because it basically
needs to be done in lock step with updating the .symtab section, if one
doesn't need to use SHN_XINDEX in there, the section should (or should be
updated to) contain SHN_UNDEF entry, otherwise needs to have whatever would
be overwise stored but couldn't fit.  But repeating due to that all the
symtab decisions what to discard and how to rewrite it would be ugly.

So, the patch instead emits the .symtab_shndx section (or sections) last
and prepares the content during the .symtab processing and in a second
pass when going just through .symtab_shndx sections just uses the saved
content.

2024-09-07  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR lto/116614
	* simple-object-elf.c (SHN_COMMON): Align comment with neighbouring
	comments.
	(SHN_HIRESERVE): Use uppercase hex digits instead of lowercase for
	consistency.
	(simple_object_elf_find_sections): Formatting fixes.
	(simple_object_elf_fetch_attributes): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_attributes_merge): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_start_write): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_write_ehdr): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_write_shdr): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_write_to_file): Likewise.
	(simple_object_elf_copy_lto_debug_section): Likewise.  Don't fail for
	new_i - 1 >= SHN_LORESERVE, instead arrange in that case to copy
	over .symtab_shndx sections, though emit those last and compute their
	section content when processing associated .symtab sections.  Handle
	simple_object_internal_read failure even in the .symtab_shndx reading
	case.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant