For better visibility to the Fortran crowd, I'll send this to the
Fortran mailing list.
See Richard Earnshaw's remark near the end of the message.
Kind regards,
Toon Moene.
On 2/19/24 14:16, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/02/2024 10:58, Tamar Christina wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamar Christina
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:05 AM
To: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com>; gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo
Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM
To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>;
Kyrylo
Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote:
Hi All,
This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed. It has
a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64:
1. IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP operations,
only that an exception is raised somehow.
2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status register
and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead.
3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64.
As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so we
should just xfail it.
Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test. XFAIL just adds clutter to verbose
output
and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case.
Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a guard
for
the test.
It looks like this is similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 so
I'll just similarly skip it.
--- inline copy of patch ---
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
index
205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..e29d8c678e6e51c3f2e5dac53c7703bb18a99ac4
100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
-!
+! { dg-skip-if "PR libfortran/78314" { aarch64*-*-gnu* arm*-*-gnueabi
arm*-*-gnueabihf } }
! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES
Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
OK, but please give the fortran maintainers 24hrs to comment before pushing.
R.
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/107071
* gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: skip aarch64, arm.
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
