| Message ID | bff39a88-b6bb-1be7-3322-55d71650da56@linux.vnet.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [rs6000] pr58684, pr83759 Disable test cases that fail on powerpc64. | expand |
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Bill Seurer wrote: > PR sanitizer/65479 Wrong bug number. > +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ As previously noted, testing powerpc64 like that in tests is always wrong (because you can have 64-bit multilibs with a compiler defaulting to 32-bit, and vice versa, so need to test powerpc*-*-* together with relevant effective-targets for the multilib under test being 32-bit or 64-bit). In the present case, there is nothing specific to 64-bit at all; this bug applies to hard-float powerpc for both 32-bit and 64-bit, so just testing powerpc*-*-* without any effective-target is appropriate (I don't think it's worth trying to exclude soft-float from what's covered).
On 01/11/2018 02:20 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Bill Seurer wrote: > >> PR sanitizer/65479 > > Wrong bug number. > >> +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ > > As previously noted, testing powerpc64 like that in tests is always wrong > (because you can have 64-bit multilibs with a compiler defaulting to > 32-bit, and vice versa, so need to test powerpc*-*-* together with > relevant effective-targets for the multilib under test being 32-bit or > 64-bit). > > In the present case, there is nothing specific to 64-bit at all; this bug > applies to hard-float powerpc for both 32-bit and 64-bit, so just testing > powerpc*-*-* without any effective-target is appropriate (I don't think > it's worth trying to exclude soft-float from what's covered). > Thanks, I will fix those.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:36:53PM -0600, Bill Seurer wrote: > [PATCH, rs6000] pr58684, pr83759 Disable test cases that fail on powerpc64. > > This patch disables a few test cases on powerpc64 that fail after r256380 > due to a longstanding issue with floating-point compares. > > See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 for more information. > > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and > powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk? > > > 2018-01-11 Bill Seurer <seurer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > PR sanitizer/65479 > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c: Add dg-skip. > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-2.c: Add dg-skip. > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-3.c: Add dg-skip. > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-4.c: Add dg-skip. Could you xfail them instead? So that we automatically know what to update when the problem finally is fixed. Or will that not work for some reason? Segher
On 01/12/2018 11:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:36:53PM -0600, Bill Seurer wrote: >> [PATCH, rs6000] pr58684, pr83759 Disable test cases that fail on powerpc64. >> >> This patch disables a few test cases on powerpc64 that fail after r256380 >> due to a longstanding issue with floating-point compares. >> >> See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 for more information. >> >> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu and >> powerpc64be-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Is this ok for trunk? >> >> >> 2018-01-11 Bill Seurer <seurer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> PR sanitizer/65479 >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c: Add dg-skip. >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-2.c: Add dg-skip. >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-3.c: Add dg-skip. >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-4.c: Add dg-skip. > > Could you xfail them instead? So that we automatically know what to > update when the problem finally is fixed. Or will that not work for > some reason? I actually originally did xfail on the dg-if but then got XPASSes on the compilation steps. I think this will work: /* { dg-do run { xfail { powerpc*-*-* } } } */ /* remove the xfail for powerpc when pr58684 is fixed */ /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c (revision 256541) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ #include <fenv.h> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-2.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-2.c (revision 256541) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-2.c (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ #include <fenv.h> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-3.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-3.c (revision 256541) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-3.c (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ #include <fenv.h> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-4.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-4.c (revision 256541) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-4.c (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "remove this when pr58684 is fixed" { powerpc64*-*-* } } */ #include <fenv.h>