From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1BD493858C42; Thu, 23 May 2024 12:27:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1BD493858C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1716467255;
	bh=p+c/8wYRdrMeByUVhCmL022U7s66Jgkb4iMZGF+Z/48=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=SB45gCyCr7gG+QXESAJWaMy8LlXgYgoVi/XXfeCcZHzuWxaYogug94F7U23/SJy9p
	 cfjjHC3nScftfxQDcDnU2oMjcdncg3Dckihy2e7V40Jq3/c61JPK1QhFmMBJePgX62
	 XRVkAJQa1z916vsPIiVhsE9bf031Om9huAd4zV1U=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114148] gcc.target/i386/pr106010-7b.c FAILs
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 12:27:33 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114148-4-y6aTpYQFjU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114148-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114148-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114148

--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
To investigate further, I've added comparison functions to a reduced
version of pr106010-7b.c, with

void
cmp_epi8 (_Complex unsigned char* a, _Complex unsigned char* b)
{
  for (int i =3D 0; i !=3D N; i++)
    if (a[i] !=3D b[i])
      {
        printf ("cmp_epi8: i =3D %d: a[i].r =3D %x a[i].i =3D %x b[i].r =3D=
 %x b[i].i =3D
%x\n",
                i, __real__ a[i], __imag__ a[i], __real__ b[i], __imag__ b[=
i]);
      }
}

This shows (when using _Complex unsigned char since on Solaris, char is
signed by default)

cmp_epi8: i =3D 76: a[i].r =3D 0 a[i].i =3D 0 b[i].r =3D 88 b[i].i =3D 33
cmp_epi8: i =3D 77: a[i].r =3D 0 a[i].i =3D 0 b[i].r =3D 6 b[i].i =3D 8
cmp_epi8: i =3D 80: a[i].r =3D 0 a[i].i =3D 0 b[i].r =3D 3 b[i].i =3D 0

I've also noticed that the test result depends on the implementation of
malloc used:

* With Solaris libc malloc, libmalloc, and watchmalloc, the test aborts.

* However, when using one of libbsdmalloc, libmapmalloc, libmtmalloc, or
  libumem, the test works.

However, ISTM that the test is simply bogus: in avx_test

* epi8_src, epi8_dst are allocated with malloc, buffer contents undefined

* epi8_dst is cleared

* epi8_dst is initialized from p_init

* in foo_epi8, epi8_src[0] (an undefined value) is copied into first N
  elements of epi8_dst

* epi8_dst is compared to epi8_src (with the remaining members of epi8_src
  still undefined)

Why on earth would the rest of epi8_dst and epi8_src be identical if
epi8_src was never initialized?=