From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4966 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2012 18:10:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 4935 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2012 18:10:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:10:06 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/51753] Many gcc.dg/simultate-thread tests fail on Solaris 10+/x86 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:10:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753 --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-07 18:09:45 UTC --- > Please look at gcc.log files in your testsuite directory. There are extensive > single-instruction traces to analyse what went wrong. Comparing your traces to > linux execution should give you a hint. The Solaris results were completely nonsensical at first, but ultimately could be explained by a (long-standing, I suppose) and stupid gdb bug: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-02/msg00075.html With this fixed, all but the FAIL: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-load-int128.c -O0 -g thread simulation test failures (at all optimization levels) were gone. I didn't have the Linux/x86_64 gcc.log available for comparison, so I still have to investigate that one. On Solaris 10/x86, I'm sometimes still seeing FAILs, but they may just be timeouts. I've have to check that, too. I'm still seeing a large number of failures both on IRIX 6.5 and Tru64 UNIX V5.1B (both with gdb 7.4), but I suppose those are better filed as separate PRs. I certainly cannot compare gcc.log/g++.log output from other OSes since have no machines running e.g. Linux for comparison. Rainer