[Bug modula2/102344] New: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[Bug modula2/102344] New: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

            Bug ID: 102344
           Summary: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: modula2
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

The gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod test FAILs everywhere, it seems (seen on
i386-pc-solaris2.11 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, both 32 and 64-bit):

FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -g  
FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O  
FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O -g  
FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -Os  
FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  
FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions

The test is expected to FAIL, it seems, but actually compilation completes
without error.  So this should actually be an XPASS instead.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com> ---
"ro at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344
>
>             Bug ID: 102344
>            Summary: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs
>            Product: gcc
>            Version: 12.0
>             Status: UNCONFIRMED
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P3
>          Component: modula2
>           Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
>           Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
>                 CC: gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com
>   Target Milestone: ---
>
> The gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod test FAILs everywhere, it seems (seen on
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, both 32 and 64-bit):
>
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -g  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O -g  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -Os  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions
>
> The test is expected to FAIL, it seems, but actually compilation completes
> without error.  So this should actually be an XPASS instead.

yes indeed it should be XPASS - I'll move this into the pass directory.

regards,
Gaius

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com> ---
moved file in the git repro branch and pushed.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com> ---
"ro at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344
>
>             Bug ID: 102344
>            Summary: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs
>            Product: gcc
>            Version: 12.0
>             Status: UNCONFIRMED
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P3
>          Component: modula2
>           Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
>           Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
>                 CC: gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com
>   Target Milestone: ---
>
> The gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod test FAILs everywhere, it seems (seen on
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, both 32 and 64-bit):
>
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -g  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O -g  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -Os  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  
> FAIL: gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions
>
> The test is expected to FAIL, it seems, but actually compilation completes
> without error.  So this should actually be an XPASS instead.

apologies if this is the wrong way to mention a status change.  (Is this
done on bugzilla?  I've looked and cannot see how to change its status
:-).
I'd like to confirm the bug and report that it is now fixed (I believe) in the
git repro.  I've moved TestLong4.mod to the pass directory,

regards,
Gaius

regards,
Gaius

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com> ---
> apologies if this is the wrong way to mention a status change.  (Is this
> done on bugzilla?  I've looked and cannot see how to change its status
> :-).

The customary way is to change the Status to CONFIRMED once you've
verified the report is correct.   Once you start working on a fix (or
intend to), assign the PR to yourself.  When the fix is done and has
been committed, change the Status to RESOLVED.  Please add a PR
reference for the fix to the ChangeLog entry as described in

        https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#ChangeLogs
e.g
        PR modula2/102344

This way, the PR is automatically updated with a reference to the commit.

> I'd like to confirm the bug and report that it is now fixed (I believe) in the
> git repro.  I've moved TestLong4.mod to the pass directory,

Thanks.  I'll try another build of the branch once I get around to it.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
                 CC|                            |dje at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Gaius reports fixed.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-02-28

--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Unfortunately, the test still FAILs for 32-bit configurations like
i386-pc-solaris2.11 or sparc-sun-solaris2.11 with -m32 or x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
with -m32:

FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -O  
FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -O -g  
FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  
FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions  
FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -Os  
FAIL: gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod,  -g  

/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod:26:6:
warning: attempting to assign a value '9223372036854775808' to a designator 'l'
which will exceed the range of type 'LONGCARD'

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[gaius at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #7 from Gaius Mulley <gaius at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57575
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57575&action=edit
Proposed fix

Here is a proposed fix - it adds a new testlong4.mod test inside the
extensions/cpp directory and conditionally compiles the correct constant value
for the sizeof long.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
Looks good: I've just tested both testcases on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (both 32 and 64-bit).  Everything PASSes just
fine.  Thanks.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley <gaius@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46666b9bde5903d80ad8a30f5e7ecb6fc4208290

commit r14-9236-g46666b9bde5903d80ad8a30f5e7ecb6fc4208290
Author: Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Feb 29 13:42:30 2024 +0000

    PR modula2/102344 TestLong4.mod FAILs

    This is a testsuite fix for TestLong4.mod so that it
    succeeds on 32 bit systems.  The original TestLong4.mod has
    been rewritten as testing MAX(LONGCARD) into the variable l.
    The new testlong4.mod has been added to cpp/pass.  The new
    testcode uses the C preprocessor to select the appropriate
    constant literal depending upon __SIZEOF_LONG__.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR modula2/102344
            * gm2/pim/pass/TestLong4.mod: Rewrite.
            * gm2/cpp/pass/testlong4.mod: New test.

    Signed-off-by: Gaius Mulley <gaiusmod2@gmail.com>

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[gaius at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

Gaius Mulley <gaius at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
            Version|12.0                        |14.0
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED

--- Comment #10 from Gaius Mulley <gaius at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm optimistically changing the version of the bug from 12 to 14 and closing
it.
Feel free to re-open if this was misjudged.  I suspect this patch is a
candidate for back porting to 13.
Thanks for the bug report.

[Bug modula2/102344] gm2/pim/fail/TestLong4.mod FAILs

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102344

--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #10 from Gaius Mulley <gaius at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I'm optimistically changing the version of the bug from 12 to 14 and closing
> it.

Right, that was my intent ;-)

> Feel free to re-open if this was misjudged.  I suspect this patch is a
> candidate for back porting to 13.

It wouldn't hurt given that it's low-risk.  However, I'm concentrating
on 14 right now to finally get cleaner results on Solaris.

Thanks.