diff mbox series

AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]

Message ID patch-18274-tamar@arm.com
State New
Headers show
Series AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071] | expand

Commit Message

Tamar Christina Feb. 15, 2024, 10:57 a.m. UTC 
Hi All,

This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed.  It has
a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:

1.  IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
    only that an exception is raised somehow.

2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
   and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.

3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.

As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
should just xfail it.

Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.

Ok for master?

Thanks,
Tamar

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	PR fortran/107071
	* gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: xfail aarch64.

--- inline copy of patch -- 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..3667571969427ae7b2b96684ec1af8b3fdd4985f 100644




--
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..3667571969427ae7b2b96684ec1af8b3fdd4985f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run { xfail { aarch64*-*-* } } }
 !
 ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES

Comments

Richard Earnshaw (lists) Feb. 15, 2024, 11 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed.  It has
> a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:
> 
> 1.  IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
>     only that an exception is raised somehow.
> 
> 2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
>    and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.
> 
> 3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.
> 
> As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
> should just xfail it.
> 
> Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> 
> Ok for master?

Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test.  XFAIL just adds clutter to verbose output and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case.

Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a guard for the test.

R.

> 
> Thanks,
> Tamar
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
>         PR fortran/107071
>         * gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: xfail aarch64.
> 
> --- inline copy of patch --
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..3667571969427ae7b2b96684ec1af8b3fdd4985f 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do run }
> +! { dg-do run { xfail { aarch64*-*-* } } }
>  !
>  ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
Tamar Christina Feb. 15, 2024, 11:05 a.m. UTC | #2 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM
> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>; Kyrylo
> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
> 
> On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed.  It has
> > a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:
> >
> > 1.  IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
> >     only that an exception is raised somehow.
> >
> > 2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
> >    and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.
> >
> > 3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.
> >
> > As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
> > should just xfail it.
> >
> > Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> >
> > Ok for master?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test.  XFAIL just adds clutter to verbose output
> and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case.
> 
> Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a guard for
> the test.

There seems to be check_effective_target_fenv_exceptions which seems to test for
if the target can raise FP exceptions.  I'll see if that works.

Thanks,
Tamar

> 
> R.
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamar
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> >         PR fortran/107071
> >         * gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: xfail aarch64.
> >
> > --- inline copy of patch --
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> > index
> 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..3667571969427ae7b2b9668
> 4ec1af8b3fdd4985f 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -! { dg-do run }
> > +! { dg-do run { xfail { aarch64*-*-* } } }
> >  !
> >  ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
Tamar Christina Feb. 19, 2024, 10:58 a.m. UTC | #3 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamar Christina
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:05 AM
> To: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; gcc-
> patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>; Kyrylo
> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM
> > To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>;
> Kyrylo
> > Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
> > <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
> >
> > On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed.  It has
> > > a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:
> > >
> > > 1.  IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
> > >     only that an exception is raised somehow.
> > >
> > > 2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
> > >    and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.
> > >
> > > 3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.
> > >
> > > As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
> > > should just xfail it.
> > >
> > > Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> > >
> > > Ok for master?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test.  XFAIL just adds clutter to verbose
> output
> > and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case.
> >
> > Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a guard for
> > the test.
> 

It looks like this is similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 so
I'll just similarly skip it.

--- inline copy of patch ---

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..e29d8c678e6e51c3f2e5dac53c7703bb18a99ac4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ! { dg-do run }
-!
+! { dg-skip-if "PR libfortran/78314" { aarch64*-*-gnu* arm*-*-gnueabi arm*-*-gnueabihf } }
 ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES
 
Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.

Ok for master?

Thanks,
Tamar

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	PR fortran/107071
	* gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: skip aarch64, arm.
Richard Earnshaw (lists) Feb. 19, 2024, 1:16 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 19/02/2024 10:58, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tamar Christina
>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:05 AM
>> To: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; gcc-
>> patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>; Kyrylo
>> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
>> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM
>>> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>;
>> Kyrylo
>>> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
>>> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
>>>
>>> On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed.  It has
>>>> a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
>>>>     only that an exception is raised somehow.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
>>>>    and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.
>>>>
>>>> As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
>>>> should just xfail it.
>>>>
>>>> Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>>>>
>>>> Ok for master?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test.  XFAIL just adds clutter to verbose
>> output
>>> and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case.
>>>
>>> Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a guard for
>>> the test.
>>
> 
> It looks like this is similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 so
> I'll just similarly skip it.
> 
> --- inline copy of patch ---
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..e29d8c678e6e51c3f2e5dac53c7703bb18a99ac4 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>  ! { dg-do run }
> -!
> +! { dg-skip-if "PR libfortran/78314" { aarch64*-*-gnu* arm*-*-gnueabi arm*-*-gnueabihf } }
>  ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES
>  
> Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> 
> Ok for master?

OK, but please give the fortran maintainers 24hrs to comment before pushing.

R.

> 
> Thanks,
> Tamar
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	PR fortran/107071
> 	* gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: skip aarch64, arm.
diff mbox series

Patch

--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ 
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run { xfail { aarch64*-*-* } } }
 !
 ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES