On 05/07/2018 03:41 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 7 May 2018 at 12:04, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
On 04/21/2018 07:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
* gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c: New test.
Hi,
FTR, I ran into a link error "unresolved symbol nexttowardf" using the
standalone nvptx toolchain:
...
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c execution test
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nextafter"
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nexttoward"
FAIL: gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c compilation failed to produce executable
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-3.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-3.c execution test
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-3.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nextafter"
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-3.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nexttoward"
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-4.c (test for excess errors)
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-4.c execution test
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-4.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nextafter"
PASS: gcc.dg/nextafter-4.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "nexttoward"
...
This failure exposes a newlib bug. I've submitted a patch here (
https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2018/msg00350.html ).
Hi
I noticed the same problem on arm and aarch64 bare-metal targets using newlib,
and I thought it was a matter of adding the c99_runtime effective target,
as done in the attached patch.
Even if newlib gets a fix for this, the effective target will still
claim c99_runtime
is not supported on such targets....
Hi Christophe,
It's true that newlib does not support c99 fully, but given that with
the fix mentioned above (which was applied upstream) the test-case is
linking, the c99 functions required by the test-case are at least present.
With the fix applied, the test-case now fails in execution for nvptx. I
don't know yet whether that's a target issue or a newlib issue. Can you
remove the c99 effective target test and run with updated newlib and see
if it passes or fails in execution for arm/aarch64?
FWIW, also this test fails for me in execution on ubuntu 16.04 with
glibc 2.23.
Thanks,
- Tom
