Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]

Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]

[Toon Moene]

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.Earnshaw@arm.com>; gcc-
>>> patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>; Kyrylo
>>> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
>>> <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM
>>>> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>;
>>> Kyrylo
>>>> Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford
>>>> <Richard.Sandiford@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: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071]

[FX Coudert]

Skipping is the right thing to do at this point.
OK to push from the Fortran part.

FX