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.earns...@arm.com>; gcc- >> patc...@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo >> Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071] >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM >>> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >>> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; >> Kyrylo >>> Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford >>> <richard.sandif...@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.
