Re: [PATCH] Provide Solaris 11 buildbots

[Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>]

Hi Sergio,

>>> I'll enable the email notifications for both builders later today.
>>
>> excellent, thanks.

it would be great if you could do this: last night Tom's series of
-Wshadow=local patches broke the Solaris build, which didn't trigger a
gdb-patches mail, thus easily going unnoticed.

>> I had a look at the current set of build warnings and wondered what (if
>> any) to do about them:
>>
>> ../../binutils-gdb/libiberty/pex-unix.c:612:7: warning: ‘vfork’ is
>> deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
>>
>> Solaris 11 has deprecated vfork.  vfork(2) suggests to replace uses by
>> posix_spawn or posix_spawnp, but this is something to take up with the
>> libiberty maintainers.
>
> Yes, you should get in touch with the GCC/libiberty maintainers.

I certainly will.

>> checking whether a statically linked program can dlopen itself... Setting
>> warning flags = -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
>> -Wshadow -Wstack-usage=262144 -Werror
>> Setting warning flags = -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
>> -Wshadow -Wstack-usage=262144 -Werror
>> checking compiler warning flags...  -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-unused
>> -Wunused-value -Wunused-variable -Wunused-function -Wno-switch
>> -Wno-char-subscripts -Wempty-body -Wunused-but-set-parameter
>> -Wunused-but-set-variable -Wno-sign-compare
>> -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized -Wsuggest-override
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 -Wduplicated-cond -Wno-unknown-pragmas
>> -Wno-deprecated-declarations -Werror
>>
>> Those are all spurious, sometimes two different lines running into each
>> other.
>
> This happens because of the parallel build.

True, but even so the 'Setting warning flags' line counts as a warning ;-)

>> /opt/gdb-buildbot/home/solaris11-sparcv9/solaris11-sparcv9-m64/build/gdb/../../binutils-gdb/gdb/c-exp.y:
>> warning: 42 shift/reduce conflicts [-Wconflicts-sr]
>> /opt/gdb-buildbot/home/solaris11-sparcv9/solaris11-sparcv9-m64/build/gdb/../../binutils-gdb/gdb/c-exp.y:
>> warning: 53 reduce/reduce conflicts [-Wconflicts-rr]
>> /opt/gdb-buildbot/home/solaris11-sparcv9/solaris11-sparcv9-m64/build/gdb/../../binutils-gdb/gdb/m2-exp.y:
>> warning: 34 shift/reduce conflicts [-Wconflicts-sr]
>> /opt/gdb-buildbot/home/solaris11-sparcv9/solaris11-sparcv9-m64/build/gdb/../../binutils-gdb/gdb/m2-exp.y:301.25-44:
>> warning: rule useless in parser due to conflicts [-Wother]
>>
>> Those are from the bundled bison 3.0.4 and again also present on
>> Fedora.  One could silence them with -Wno-conflicts-sr if need be, but
>> that would require testing if the yacc/bison used supports those
>> options.
>>
>> bison 2.4.2 only emits
>>
>> conflicts: 42 shift/reduce, 53 reduce/reduce
>> conflicts: 34 shift/reduce
>
> They happen on pretty much every builder.  I personally don't think
> these should be silenced.

Probably not, though if the conflicts are as expected it would be nice
they didn't trigger a warning.

>> ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/coffread.c:1104:36: warning: ‘newobj’ may be used
>> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>
>> Seems legit.
>
> Should be easy to fix.

Indeed: Tom already beat me to it.

>> ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/inferior.h:567:26: warning: ‘*((void*)(&
>> maybe_restore_inferior)+40).scoped_restore_current_inferior::m_saved_inf’
>> may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/progspace.h:285:31: warning: ‘*((void*)(&
>> maybe_restore_inferior)+32).scoped_restore_current_program_space::m_saved_pspace’
>> may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/ui-out.h:197:18: warning:
>> ‘asm_list.ui_out_emit_type<(ui_out_type)1>::m_uiout’ may be used
>> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>
>> Those three could be legit, but I cannot tell.  I suspect they don't
>> occur on other builders because they use older gcc versions (e.g. gcc
>> 4.8) while the Solaris builders use gcc 7.3.
>
> ISTR seeing these in other builders as well.  If I'm not mistaken, they
> have to do with a GCC issue about std::optional or some such.

Right: this is under discussion in another thread right now.

Thanks.
        Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University