> I hope this patch will fix the issues people have seen with atomics
> tests failing on 32-bit architectures with missing __atomic_*_16 (or
> at least replace them by different problems).  I'm running tests on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu; perhaps someone seeing the 32-bit problems
> could test it there?

I have applied the patch on top of revision 204561 on x86_64-apple-darwin13.
The tests c11-atomic-exec-1.c to c11-atomic-exec-4.c pass after it.
However the test c11-atomic-exec-5.c is timed out for 10 sets of options
with -m32 and 8 sets with -m64 (-O2 and -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer pass).
This has been tested with

make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="atomic.exp --target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"

So I have reverted the patch, then the tests failed with -m32 and
c11-atomic-exec-5.c was timed out with -O0 only.
This failure disappeared when testing with

make -k -j8 check-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"

without the patch. With it only gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c  -O2 -flto
has been timed out.

When run manually (compiled with
gcc49 -std=c11 -pedantic-errors -pthread -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L 
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 
-L/opt/gcc/build_w/x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0/./libatomic/.libs -latomic
or
gcc49 -std=c11 -pedantic-errors -pthread -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L 
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c 
-L/opt/gcc/build_w/x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0/i386/./libatomic/.libs -latomic 
-m32)
the test takes minutes.

The config infos are

Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc49
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc/gcc4.9w/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0
Configured with: ../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.9w 
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,ada,java,lto --with-gmp=/opt/mp 
--with-system-zlib --with-isl=/opt/mp --enable-lto --enable-plugin 
--with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=corei7
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131108 (experimental) [trunk revision 204561p12] (GCC) 

Dominique

Reply via email to