[testsuite,libffi] XFAIL libffi.call/cls_{,long}double_va.c on IRIX 6.5 (PR libffi/46660)

Submitted by Rainer Orth on June 29, 2011, 12:52 p.m.

Details

Message ID yddoc1g3ilg.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Rainer Orth June 29, 2011, 12:52 p.m.
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:

> The tests now fail on x86_64-linux and i?86-linux like
>
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -Os output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -Os output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test,
> is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern te
> st, is 7.0
>
> spawn [open ...]^M
> 7.0
> res: 4
> 7.0
> res: 4
> PASS: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
> res: 4
> 7.0
> res: 4
> , should match PR libffi/466607.0^M?
> res: 4^M?
> 7.0^M?
> res: 4
>
> I believe your dg-output first arguments are bogus.

You're right, I'm an idiot ;-)  I should have tested on a non-xfailed
target, too.

Fixed as follows, tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and mips-sgi-irix6.5,
applied to mainline and 4.6 branch.  The 4.5 branch is unaffected.

Sorry.
	Rainer


2011-06-29  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	* testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c: Move PR number to comment.
	* testsuite/libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c: Likewise.

Comments

H.J. Lu June 29, 2011, 1:41 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Rainer Orth
<ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The tests now fail on x86_64-linux and i?86-linux like
>>
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -Os output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -Os output pattern test, is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test,
>> is 7.0
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern te
>> st, is 7.0
>>
>> spawn [open ...]^M
>> 7.0
>> res: 4
>> 7.0
>> res: 4
>> PASS: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test
>> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
>> res: 4
>> 7.0
>> res: 4
>> , should match PR libffi/466607.0^M?
>> res: 4^M?
>> 7.0^M?
>> res: 4
>>
>> I believe your dg-output first arguments are bogus.
>
> You're right, I'm an idiot ;-)  I should have tested on a non-xfailed
> target, too.
>
> Fixed as follows, tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and mips-sgi-irix6.5,
> applied to mainline and 4.6 branch.  The 4.5 branch is unaffected.
>
> Sorry.
>        Rainer
>
>
> 2011-06-29  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>
>        * testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c: Move PR number to comment.
>        * testsuite/libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c: Likewise.
>
> Index: libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c
> ===================================================================
> --- libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c        (revision 175618)
> +++ libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c        (working copy)
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>
>  /* { dg-do run { xfail strongarm*-*-* xscale*-*-* } } */
>  /* { dg-output "" { xfail avr32*-*-* } } */
> -/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
> +/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
>  /* { dg-skip-if "" arm*-*-* { "-mfloat-abi=hard" } { "" } } */
>

Why not just add mips-sgi-irix6* to avr32*-*-*?
Rainer Orth June 29, 2011, 1:43 p.m.
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:

>> Index: libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c        (revision 175618)
>> +++ libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c        (working copy)
>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>>
>>  /* { dg-do run { xfail strongarm*-*-* xscale*-*-* } } */
>>  /* { dg-output "" { xfail avr32*-*-* } } */
>> -/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
>> +/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
>>  /* { dg-skip-if "" arm*-*-* { "-mfloat-abi=hard" } { "" } } */
>>
>
> Why not just add mips-sgi-irix6* to avr32*-*-*?

So the corresponding PR can be noted.  If you list it without
attribution, you'd have to search all of them to find which one is for
IRIX.

	Rainer
David Gilbert June 29, 2011, 1:52 p.m.
On 29 June 2011 14:43, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> -/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
> +/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */

Do you fancy adding the appropriate MIPS fix on top of the libffi varargs patch
I posted a few months back - then it could actually pass the test!

Dave
Rainer Orth June 29, 2011, 1:54 p.m.
David Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> writes:

> On 29 June 2011 14:43, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> -/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
>> +/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
>
> Do you fancy adding the appropriate MIPS fix on top of the libffi varargs patch
> I posted a few months back - then it could actually pass the test!

I plan to do so once libffi 3.0.11 with the varargs patch lands in the
gcc tree, unless someone beats me to it.

	Rainer

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

Index: libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c
===================================================================
--- libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c	(revision 175618)
+++ libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_double_va.c	(working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ 
 
 /* { dg-do run { xfail strongarm*-*-* xscale*-*-* } } */
 /* { dg-output "" { xfail avr32*-*-* } } */
-/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
+/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
 /* { dg-skip-if "" arm*-*-* { "-mfloat-abi=hard" } { "" } } */
 
 #include "ffitest.h"
Index: libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c
===================================================================
--- libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c	(revision 175618)
+++ libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c	(working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ 
 
 /* { dg-do run { xfail strongarm*-*-* xscale*-*-* } } */
 /* { dg-output "" { xfail avr32*-*-* x86_64-*-mingw* } } */
-/* { dg-output "PR libffi/46660" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } */
+/* { dg-output "" { xfail mips-sgi-irix6* } } PR libffi/46660 */
 /* { dg-skip-if "" arm*-*-* { "-mfloat-abi=hard" } { "" } } */
 
 #include "ffitest.h"