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

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Rainer Orth
Date June 29, 2011, 12:52 p.m.
Message ID <yddoc1g3ilg.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/102591/
State New
Headers show

Comments

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.
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

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"