[Bug testsuite/114320] New: New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[Bug testsuite/114320] New: New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

            Bug ID: 114320
           Summary: New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails
           Product: gcc
           Version: 14.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

g:4aa87b856067d4911de8fb66b3a27659dc75ca6d, r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4

This new test works on our powerpc64 systesm built with IEEE128 as default but
fails everywhere else (both BE and LE).

make  -k check-gcc-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'
modules.exp=target-powerpc-1_a.C"
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++2b (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C -std=c++2b (test for excess errors)


cc1plus: warning: Using IEEE extended precision 'long double' [-Wpsabi]
FAIL: g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_b.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
cc1plus: warning: Using IEEE extended precision 'long double' [-Wpsabi]


commit 4aa87b856067d4911de8fb66b3a27659dc75ca6d (HEAD)
Author: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun Mar 10 22:06:18 2024 +1100

    c++: Support target-specific nodes when streaming modules [PR111224]

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[linkw at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-03-13
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
                 CC|                            |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
These new test cases require "-Wno-psabi" to suppress the warning.

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[nshead at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

--- Comment #2 from Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Sorry about that. I've not been able to work out what configure flags I need to
pass to cause this to error in the first place (I don't normally develop for
powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem to fail no matter what flags I
try), but am I correct in understanding that just adding "-Wno-psabi" to the
tests should stop them from failing? If so I'm happy to push a patch to that
effect.

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[linkw at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

--- Comment #3 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #2)
> Sorry about that. I've not been able to work out what configure flags I need
> to pass to cause this to error in the first place (I don't normally develop
> for powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem to fail no matter what

I guess the machine you are using (were referring to) isn't with powerpc chip,
cfarm provides some powerpc machines (https://portal.cfarm.net/machines/list/),
both ppc64le (LE -m64) and ppc64 (BE -m32/-m64), it's recommended to leverage
them for building/testing. :)

> flags I try), but am I correct in understanding that just adding
> "-Wno-psabi" to the tests should stop them from failing? If so I'm happy to
> push a patch to that effect.

I think so, for now we don't have an effective target dedicated for __ibm128
type but it's guarded the same as what's for __float128 type (it would be
relaxed though in future, even with that using ppc_float128_sw should just be
more strict).  Ideally we can add one effective target powerpc_vsx_ok (should
be powerpc_vsx) to ensure VSX to be enabled, but considering we are going to
rework it in next release and we don't normally disable vsx explicitly, this
can be optional.

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead <nshead@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6cb5ef37c2fac240b68d8ee438aba4885956269f

commit r14-9517-g6cb5ef37c2fac240b68d8ee438aba4885956269f
Author: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat Mar 16 00:11:25 2024 +1100

    testsuite: Fix excess errors for new modules testcases on powerpc
[PR114320]

    On some configurations, PowerPC emits -Wpsabi warnings when using IEEE
    long doubles on a machine configured with IBM long double by default.
    This patch suppresses these warnings for this testcase.

            PR testsuite/114320

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_a.C: Suppress -Wpsabi.
            * g++.dg/modules/target-powerpc-1_b.C: Likewise.

    Signed-off-by: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com>

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[nshead at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Nathaniel Shead from comment #2)
> > Sorry about that. I've not been able to work out what configure flags I need
> > to pass to cause this to error in the first place (I don't normally develop
> > for powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem to fail no matter what
> 
> I guess the machine you are using (were referring to) isn't with powerpc
> chip, cfarm provides some powerpc machines
> (https://portal.cfarm.net/machines/list/), both ppc64le (LE -m64) and ppc64
> (BE -m32/-m64), it's recommended to leverage them for building/testing. :)
> 

Thanks; I was actually using one of the cfarm machines (cfarm120 specifically),
but on trying a different one I got the errors reported above, and confirmed
that adding '-Wno-psabi' fixed them.

> > flags I try), but am I correct in understanding that just adding
> > "-Wno-psabi" to the tests should stop them from failing? If so I'm happy to
> > push a patch to that effect.
> 
> I think so, for now we don't have an effective target dedicated for __ibm128
> type but it's guarded the same as what's for __float128 type (it would be
> relaxed though in future, even with that using ppc_float128_sw should just
> be more strict).  Ideally we can add one effective target powerpc_vsx_ok
> (should be powerpc_vsx) to ensure VSX to be enabled, but considering we are
> going to rework it in next release and we don't normally disable vsx
> explicitly, this can be optional.

Thanks, tested and committed as above. Should be fixed.

[Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4 fails

[nshead at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114320

Nathaniel Shead <nshead at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |14.0
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |nshead at gcc dot gnu.org