[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #8) > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6) > > Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test > > runs? Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the > > start of the test? > > Isn't the exception status guaranteed to be defined (and not signaling) when > the program starts? It should be guaranteed. Otherwise it indicates a bug in kernel or libc. > But adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() could > not hurt, for sure.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw --- Working on a patch.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-07-26 CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw --- Confirmed. It only happens when generating Thumb code. For Arm code it works correctly. I think the problem is that the Thumb code generator is emitting vcmf, while the Arm code generator uses vcmfe - the latter sets the exception bits. I'm not sure why the code is different yet, still investigating.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #10 from Thiago Jung Bauermann --- (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #8) > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6) > > Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test > > runs? Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the > > start of the test? > > Isn't the exception status guaranteed to be defined (and not signaling) when > the program starts? > > But adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() could > not hurt, for sure. I tried adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() but it didn't make a difference.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
proc add_options_for_ieee { flags } {
if { [istarget alpha*-*-*]
|| [istarget sh*-*-*] } {
return "$flags -mieee"
}
if { [istarget rx-*-*] } {
return "$flags -mnofpu"
}
return $flags
}
So it looks like this isn't expecting to add anything in most cases.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6) > Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test > runs? Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the > start of the test? Isn't the exception status guaranteed to be defined (and not signaling) when the program starts? But adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() could not hurt, for sure.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Jung Bauermann
---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #5)
> OK, so it signals FE_INVALID on the first test. Can you run this with the
> same options, and see what happens?
It ran normally:
thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$ cat test-1.c
#include
#include
void
ftrue (float x, float y)
{
if (!__builtin_iseqsig (x, y))
__builtin_abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
volatile float f1, f2;
f1 = 0.f; f2 = 0.f;
if (fetestexcept (FE_INVALID)) printf("Invalid 1\n");
ftrue (f1, f2);
if (fetestexcept (FE_INVALID)) printf("Invalid 2\n");
return 0;
}
thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$
/home/thiago.bauermann/.cache/builds/gcc-native-aarch32/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/thiago.bauermann/.cache/builds/gcc-native-aarch32/gcc/ test-1.c
-fdiagnostics-plain-output-Os -fsignaling-nans -ggdb3 -lm -o ./test-1
thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$ ./test-1
thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$ echo $?
0
thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$
> One surprising thing is that the directive "dg-add-options ieee" in the test
> did not apparently add any other option for IEEE conformance…
Ah, that's an interesting thread to pull. I'll investigate if there's any
option we should be adding.
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test runs? Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the start of the test?
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
OK, so it signals FE_INVALID on the first test. Can you run this with the same
options, and see what happens?
---
#include
#include
void
ftrue (float x, float y)
{
if (!__builtin_iseqsig (x, y))
__builtin_abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
volatile float f1, f2;
f1 = 0.f; f2 = 0.f;
if (fetestexcept (FE_INVALID)) printf("Invalid 1\n");
ftrue (f1, f2);
if (fetestexcept (FE_INVALID)) printf("Invalid 2\n");
return 0;
}
---
One surprising thing is that the directive "dg-add-options ieee" in the test
did not apparently add any other option for IEEE conformance…
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #4 from Thiago Jung Bauermann --- Thanks for looking into this. (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3) > Do the failure only occur at -Os? Only at -Os. The FAILs I mentioned in the bug report are the only ones that occur. > Does it pass at -O0, -O1, -O2? Yes. > And could you possibly run builtin-iseqsig-1.c under gdb and obtain a > backtrace? Here it is: thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$ /home/thiago.bauermann/.cache/builds/gcc-native-aarch32/gcc/xgcc -B/home/thiago.bauermann/.cache/builds/gcc-native-aarch32/gcc/ /home/thiago.bauermann/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-iseqsig-1.c -fdiagnostics-plain-output-Os -fsignaling-nans -ggdb3 -lm -o ./builtin-iseqsig-1.exe thiago.bauermann@tcwg-jade-03-dev:~/tmp$ gdb builtin-iseqsig-1.exe Reading symbols from builtin-iseqsig-1.exe... (gdb) r Starting program: /home/thiago.bauermann/tmp/builtin-iseqsig-1.exe [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] Using host libthread_db library "/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libthread_db.so.1". Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. __libc_do_syscall () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/libc-do-syscall.S:47 47 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/libc-do-syscall.S: No such file or directory. (gdb) bt #0 __libc_do_syscall () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/libc-do-syscall.S:47 #1 0xf7e8d2ca in __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=4160625664, signo=signo@entry=6, no_tid=no_tid@entry=0) at pthread_kill.c:43 #2 0xf7e8d30c in __pthread_kill_internal (signo=6, threadid=) at pthread_kill.c:78 #3 0xf7e5c840 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #4 0xf7e4d5e4 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #5 0x00010426 in main () at /home/thiago.bauermann/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-iseqsig-1.c:30 (gdb) frame 5 #5 0x00010426 in main () at /home/thiago.bauermann/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-iseqsig-1.c:30 30if (fetestexcept (FE_INVALID)) __builtin_abort (); (gdb)
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Do the failure only occur at -Os? Does it pass at -O0, -O1, -O2? And could you possibly run builtin-iseqsig-1.c under gdb and obtain a backtrace?
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #2 from Thiago Jung Bauermann --- Thanks for the quick response! (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Does pr91323.c fail on arm? No, all its tests pass: PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O0 (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O0 execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O1 (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O1 execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O3 -g execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -Os (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -Os execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none execution test PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
[Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110796 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Does pr91323.c fail on arm?
