[Bug libgomp/48841] New: [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[Bug libgomp/48841] New: [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

           Summary: [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures
                    compared to 4.4.5
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.6
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libgomp
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: htl10@users.sourceforge.net


Created attachment 24160
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24160
The full soon-to-post-to-gcc-testresults test summary

My 4.4.5 result, on the same machine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01338.html

4.4.5:
                === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes            2463
# of unexpected failures        9
# of unsupported tests          2

         === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes        1610
# of unexpected failures    466
# of unsupported tests        2

so something has gone very wrong with 4.4.6.

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #1 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-05-01 22:46:34 UTC ---
attachment posted as:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-05/msg00074.html
after prepending with some notes.

Mentioned the issue but forgot to mention the actual bug number, but I am sure
somebody will find this report if they need to.

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|                            |alphaev68-dec-osf5.1a
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.05.02 10:34:32
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-02 10:34:32 UTC ---
Please look into the testsuite log file and investigate why we are not able
to create the executable.

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ro at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-19 14:06:58 UTC ---
Apart from that, why are you wasting your time with GCC 4.4 which I don't test
any longer?  GCC 4.5 and 4.6 should be fine and have seen lots of bug fixes.

  Rainer

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-08-02 11:03:23 UTC ---
> Apart from that, why are you wasting your time with GCC 4.4 which I don't test
any longer?  GCC 4.5 and 4.6 should be fine and have seen lots of bug fixes.

4.5 does not build correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-08-02 11:09:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-08-02 11:03:23 UTC ---
>> Apart from that, why are you wasting your time with GCC 4.4 which I don't test
> any longer?  GCC 4.5 and 4.6 should be fine and have seen lots of bug fixes.
>
> 4.5 does not build correctly.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959

Please follow the directions I gave in that PR.  Start with a standard
configure; make setup, no bootstrap-lean4, no relative paths to the
source dir.  This works just fine for me, so instead of insisting on
trying untested paths, first determine if the regular one works.  Even
gcc 4.5 is old by now...

    Rainer

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #6 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-08-03 22:26:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)

> Please follow the directions I gave in that PR.  Start with a standard
> configure; make setup, no bootstrap-lean4, no relative paths to the
> source dir.  This works just fine for me, so instead of insisting on
> trying untested paths, first determine if the regular one works.  Even
> gcc 4.5 is old by now...

Okay... did the plain configure and make and no relative path, and watching my
4.6.1 "make -k check" - I'll be summiting the result later to the testsuite
mailing list; but it is currently spilling a lot of 

--------------------
Unaligned access pid=353493 <a.28.1.exe> va=0x14000ad5e pc=0x3ff81006d00
ra=0x3ff81006c44 inst=0xb3e90000
-------------------

messages, with a different <?.exe>. and I looked, and it is currently doing
make check inside libgomp . So it looks like there was some kind of alignment
regression after 4.4.5 .

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|                            |4.4.5, 4.6.1
      Known to fail|                            |4.4.6

--- Comment #7 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-08-03 23:08:47 UTC ---
Please ignore last comment 6. With 4.6.1:

        === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes        2586
# of unsupported tests        3

So the problem is not seen in 4.6.1.

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-08-04 10:55:04 UTC ---
> Okay... did the plain configure and make and no relative path, and watching my
> 4.6.1 "make -k check" - I'll be summiting the result later to the testsuite
> mailing list; but it is currently spilling a lot of 
>
> --------------------
> Unaligned access pid=353493 <a.28.1.exe> va=0x14000ad5e pc=0x3ff81006d00
> ra=0x3ff81006c44 inst=0xb3e90000
> -------------------
>
> messages, with a different <?.exe>. and I looked, and it is currently doing
> make check inside libgomp . So it looks like there was some kind of alignment
> regression after 4.4.5 .

This is not a regression, but a bug inside librt.  Already reported (PR
libgomp/45351) and worked around for gcc 4.7.0.

    Rainer

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-08-04 10:56:24 UTC ---
> Please ignore last comment 6. With 4.6.1:
>
>         === libgomp Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes        2586
> # of unsupported tests        3
>
> So the problem is not seen in 4.6.1.

It is, but the unaligned accesses are fixed up by the kernel, so this
just gives (admittedly ugly) warnings, no errors/failures.

    Rainer

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-08-05 23:44:55 UTC ---
Most strange -re-run 4.4.6 and got a different answer from previous
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-05/msg00074.html) - every part of
the resulting summary file is identical, except the libgomp section.
Here is the old 4.4.5, new 4.4.6, and the 4.6.1 from a few days ago:

4.4.5:
                === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes            2463
# of unexpected failures        9
# of unsupported tests          2

4.4.6
        === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes        2511
# of unexpected failures    9
# of unsupported tests        2

4.6.1
        === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes        2586
# of unsupported tests        3

These numbers make a lot more sense. The machine has not been upgraded nor used
all these times, so the only two changes are (1) use of absolute path in
configure, (2) during this run (in 4.6.1) I noticed /tmp was a bit small (it
failed quite early on with libnumber or libiberty) so set TMIDIR to a different
disk.

I don't think it is the path, but it is possible I just didn't notice a
not-enough temp space error; the other possibillity is some
transient/intermittent error (the alignment?). Anyway, since 4.6.1 seems to
work and fixes most of the regressions or what not, I am happy to let this one
go.

[Bug libgomp/48841] [regression] lot more libgomp testsuite failures compared to 4.4.5

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841

--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-08-09 12:16:59 UTC ---
> I don't think it is the path, but it is possible I just didn't notice a
> not-enough temp space error; the other possibillity is some
> transient/intermittent error (the alignment?). Anyway, since 4.6.1 seems to

I don't think the alignment issue ever caused failures for me.

> work and fixes most of the regressions or what not, I am happy to let this one
> go.

Fine, thanks for checking.

    Rainer