[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 07:18 --- Between "Sat Nov 12 22:59:48 UTC 2005 (revision 106840M)" and "Sun Nov 13 07:41:36 UTC 2005 (revision 106853M)" there was a changed that made the -Os case now pass, still true with "Fri Nov 18 17:28:22 UTC 2005 (revision 107186M)". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 15:00 --- No, it's not fixed. What we fixed was a wholly different thing; a "red herring" to the problem. See comment #5. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 12:47 --- Fixed in revision 107145 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-11/msg00852.html). Thanks! -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 14:17 --- Still thinking about > if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0) > fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); I'm not quite sure gcc would discard the reference. Did you test it, and does it fix the warning issue? If you didn't do it already, could you test it? I'm a bit reluctant to include that kind of workaround without being sure it actually works. Thanks! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #7 from hp at bitrange dot com 2005-11-09 10:24 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 10:08 > --- > OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the > feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually > can't > do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's > why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming > to the documented behaviour. Yes, that's a valid point. > OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything. > I'll do it when I have some time. Thanks in advance! brgds, H-P -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 10:08 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Don't worry, I do. :-) It comes from the linker, trigged by the > source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up > by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this > case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says. OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually can't do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming to the documented behaviour. > You seem to think they are defined? They're not, except for a single: > #define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0 No, that's what I was thinking should happen. That is OK (and the fpu-glibc.h code should indeed work fine, that is do nothing). > if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0) >fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything. I'll do it when I have some time. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2005-11-07 23:24:28 |2005-11-09 10:08:53 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #5 from hp at bitrange dot com 2005-11-09 01:08 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 11:08 > --- > (In reply to comment #2) > > In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\ > > /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and > > will > > always fail^M > > You're seeing this warning only for the in-pack testcase ? No, I see it for seemingly *all* test-cases. > Can you try to > compile and run another testcase (not inside the library framework) and tell > us > what the compiler/linker says? I haven't, but please, it's unimportant; don't get hung up on the warning. See below. > Since the in-pack testcase has nothing to do with the set_fpu function, I > don't > see how on earth this could happen... Don't worry, I do. :-) It comes from the linker, trigged by the source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says. > > So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be > > changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c). > > Well, even in that case, that shouldn't happen. If I read the doc correctly, > in > that case the FE_* macros are supposed not to be defined, You seem to think they are defined? They're not, except for a single: #define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0 Looking at libgfortran/config/fpu-glibc.h::set_fpu(), I guess it'd help to, instead of an (unwrapped): fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); do a: if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0) fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); and let gcc automatically discard the call and reference. > but no warning should > be issued. Not when the function is *called*, but when it's *linked in*. > I'll look into it (but can't promise anything, I don't have access > to such target). This warning is a red herring. The problem is elsewhere. Though I'm not likely to look at fortran FAILs myself for a while. I just thought it's be better to log it than not. brgds, H-P -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 11:08 --- (In reply to comment #2) > In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\ > /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and > will > always fail^M You're seeing this warning only for the in-pack testcase ? Can you try to compile and run another testcase (not inside the library framework) and tell us what the compiler/linker says? Since the in-pack testcase has nothing to do with the set_fpu function, I don't see how on earth this could happen... > So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be > changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c). Well, even in that case, that shouldn't happen. If I read the doc correctly, in that case the FE_* macros are supposed not to be defined, but no warning should be issued. I'll look into it (but can't promise anything, I don't have access to such target). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-07 23:56 --- I'm adding FX to the CC list, because this looks like it's related to his patch for FPU exceptions. -- tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-07 23:24 --- In reply to comment #1, yes. The message in the log for -O3 and -Os is now: Executing on host: /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../gfortran -B/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../ \ /home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 -w -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -L/home/h\ p/combined/crislinux-sim/ld -static -L/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs -L/home/hp/combine\ d/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libiberty -lm -o /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/in-pack.x(timeout = 3\ 00) /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs/libgfortran.a(fpu.o): In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\ /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will always fail^M output is: /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs/libgfortran.a(fpu.o): In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\ /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will always fail^M PASS: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer program stopped with signal 6.^M So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c). -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-11-07 23:24:28 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
--- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-07 13:09 --- Is this still the case? No other platform seems to be affected. -- tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P5 Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
