public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgomp/108098] New: OpenMP/nvptx reverse offload execution test FAILs
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 11:48:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108098-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108098
Bug ID: 108098
Summary: OpenMP/nvptx reverse offload execution test FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With commit r13-4593-gea4b23d9c82d9be3b982c3519fe5e8e9d833a6a8 "libgomp: Handle
OpenMP's reverse offloads", I'm seeing PASSes for a number of testing
configurations (see below), but regressions/FAILs on others:
PASS: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/reverse-offload-1.c (test for
excess errors)
[-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/reverse-offload-1.c
execution test
libgomp: cuCtxSynchronize error: unspecified launch failure (perhaps abort
was called)
Or:
libgomp: cuCtxSynchronize error: an illegal instruction was encountered
Same for C++.
PASS: libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/reverse-offload-2.c (test for
excess errors)
[-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/reverse-offload-2.c
execution test
libgomp: cuModuleGetFunction error: named symbol not found
Same for C++.
PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
[-PASS:-]{+FAIL:+} libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-1.f90 -O0 execution
test
STOP 2
libgomp: cuCtxSynchronize error: unspecified launch failure (perhaps abort
was called)
Or:
libgomp: cuCtxSynchronize error: an illegal instruction was encountered
Same for other torture testing flags.
..., and for the new test cases:
+PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-2.f90 -O execution test
+PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-3.f90 -O execution test
+PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-4.f90 -O execution test
+PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
+XFAIL: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90 -O execution test
+PASS: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5a.f90 -O (test for excess
errors)
+FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5a.f90 -O execution test
These fail with different host-side or device-side STOP codes.
I haven't analyzed further.
That's with standard option on a system with:
$ nvidia-smi
[...]
| NVIDIA-SMI 440.33.01 Driver Version: 440.33.01 CUDA Version: 10.2
[...]
| 0 Tesla K80 [...]
[...]
| 1 Tesla K80 [...]
... as well as (separately tested):
| 2 GeForce GTX 1080 [...]
..., and with '-foffload-options=nvptx-none=-mptx=3.1' on a system with:
$ nvidia-smi
[...]
| NVIDIA-SMI 361.93.02 Driver Version: 361.93.02
[...]
| 0 Tesla K20c [...]
These test cases PASS on a system with:
$ nvidia-smi
[...]
| NVIDIA-SMI 455.38 Driver Version: 455.38 CUDA Version: 11.1
[...]
| 0 Tesla K20c [...]
... as well as (separately tested):
| 1 Tesla K40c [...]
..., and:
$ nvidia-smi
[...]
| NVIDIA-SMI 455.23.05 Driver Version: 455.23.05 CUDA Version: 11.1
[...]
| 0 TITAN V [...]
Is maybe CUDA 11 (or rather, corresponding Nvidia Driver version) a hard
requirement, and if yes, how to deal with that?
next reply other threads:[~2022-12-14 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-14 11:48 tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-12-15 9:09 ` [Bug libgomp/108098] " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 9:40 ` tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 13:13 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16 15:06 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-05 9:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 21:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 21:16 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-108098-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).