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 EFFCB3858CD1; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:46:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EFFCB3858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710769560;
	bh=us77j6W7JjI1uCZY1gdad1yvVUWVg20TlhOxzBz4ADM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=fsGy7BUNqCZ8FwdUsLXnRVaG9V7SSGjeEV6Lc64zpgm48K2qPGUwnQQj6eZw91z5N
	 PlH5tjlvdwuqXhWg+Rp42y++Jl3IxdVOZcM1ZaTbtjQMpNP4D0aQM3Ndi/l6nF1WTW
	 abzXHxyIYkFSCs4CqCjpZ27W/Uxf23wKxHkaxfPg=
From: "nshead at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/114320] New test case in r14-9439-g4aa87b856067d4
 fails
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:46:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-114320-4-ygtegIRT7u@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114320-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114320-4@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=3D114320

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 dev=
elop
> > for powerpc and the machine I'm using doesn't seem to fail no matter wh=
at
>=20
> 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 ppc=
64
> (BE -m32/-m64), it's recommended to leverage them for building/testing. :)
>=20

Thanks; I was actually using one of the cfarm machines (cfarm120 specifical=
ly),
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 happ=
y to
> > push a patch to that effect.
>=20
> I think so, for now we don't have an effective target dedicated for __ibm=
128
> 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 a=
re
> 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.=