On 29/06/18 09:39 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 at 09:21, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 29/06/18 08:55 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 at 18:23, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The additions to <experimental/random> were added in 2015 but the new
>> algorithms in <experimental/algorithm> were not. This adds them.
>>
>> * include/experimental/algorithm (sample, shuffle): Add new overloads
>> using per-thread random number engine.
>> * testsuite/experimental/algorithm/sample.cc: Simpify and reduce
>> dependencies by using __gnu_test::test_container.
>> * testsuite/experimental/algorithm/sample-2.cc: New.
>> * testsuite/experimental/algorithm/shuffle.cc: New.
>>
>> Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
>>
>> This would be safe to backport, but nobody has noticed the algos are
>> missing or complained, so it doesn't seem very important to backport.
>>
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>On bare-metal targets (aarch64 and arm + newlib), I've noticed that
>the two new tests fail:
>PASS: experimental/algorithm/shuffle.cc (test for excess errors)
>spawn
/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-eabi/gcc3/utils/bin/qemu-wrapper.sh
>./shuffle.exe
>terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
> what(): random_device::random_device(const std::string&)
>
>*** EXIT code 4242
>FAIL: experimental/algorithm/shuffle.cc execution test
>
>PASS: experimental/algorithm/sample-2.cc (test for excess errors)
>spawn
/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-eabi/gcc3/utils/bin/qemu-wrapper.sh
>./sample-2.exe
>terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error'
> what(): random_device::random_device(const std::string&)
>
>*** EXIT code 4242
>FAIL: experimental/algorithm/sample-2.cc execution test
>
>Does this ring a bell?
Does the existing testsuite/experimental/random/randint.cc file fail
in the same way?
Yes it does.
And so do:
25_algorithms/make_heap/complexity.cc
This one also uses std::random_device.
23_containers/array/element_access/at_neg.cc
Hmm,
// Expected behavior is to either throw and have the uncaught
// exception end up in a terminate handler which eventually exits,
// or abort. (Depending on -fno-exceptions.)
So this is expected to XFAIL.
26_numerics/random/random_device/cons/default.cc
We should XFAIL the ones that use std::random_device, if we can
identify an effective target to describe them.
