public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
@ 2013-02-04 13:32 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08 15:47 ` [Bug fortran/56204] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-04 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Bug #: 56204
Summary: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on
Solaris 9/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: ro@gcc.gnu.org
Host: i386-pc-solaris2.9
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.9
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.9
Since about 20121205, the quad_[23].f90 execution tests started to FAIL on
Solaris 9/x86:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O3 -g execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -Os execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -O3 -g execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90 -Os execution test
It aborts here:
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0xb5b23b96 in _libc_kill () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1
(gdb) where
#0 0xb5b23b96 in _libc_kill () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1
#1 0xb5ad7dbe in raise () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1
#2 0xb5ac03fe in abort () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1
#3 0xb5c54714 in _gfortrani_sys_abort ()
at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgfortran/runtime/error.c:173
#4 0xb5d0f3b8 in _gfortran_abort ()
at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libgfortran/intrinsics/abort.c:33
#5 0x080511b2 in test_qp ()
at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90:34
#6 0x08051662 in main (argc=1, argv=0x8047a28)
at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90:78
#7 0x08050a1d in _start ()
The test is l.34:
34 if (fp2 /= fp4) call abort()
but unfortunately gdb 7.5 can read neither variable.
(gdb) p fp2
$1 = <error reading variable>
(gdb) p fp4
$2 = <error reading variable>
The quad_2.f90 is a regression from 4.7, the quad_3.f90 test wasn't present
there.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-08 15:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 19:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-08 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08 15:47 ` [Bug fortran/56204] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-12 19:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-13 11:20 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-12 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-12 19:27:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The test is l.34:
>
> 34 if (fp2 /= fp4) call abort()
> but unfortunately gdb 7.5 can read neither variable.
Can you uncomment the existing "print" lines and add
print *, fp2
print *, fp4
before the abort line?
Probably, some rounding goes wrong - maybe replacing
if (fp2 /= fp4) call abort()
by
if (abs (fp2 - fp4)/fp2 > epsilon(fp2)) call abort()
works which allows for a minor deviation of the value.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08 15:47 ` [Bug fortran/56204] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 19:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-13 11:20 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-02-13 12:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2013-02-13 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-02-13 11:19:37 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-12 19:27:16 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> The test is l.34:
>>
>> 34 if (fp2 /= fp4) call abort()
>> but unfortunately gdb 7.5 can read neither variable.
>
> Can you uncomment the existing "print" lines and add
> print *, fp2
> print *, fp4
> before the abort line?
Sure, this way I get
> 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000<
>1.00000000000000000000000000000000000<
> 1.41421356237309504880168872420969798<
>1.41421356237309504880168872420969798<
1.41421356237309504880168872420969798
1.41421356237309504880168872420969779
> Probably, some rounding goes wrong - maybe replacing
> if (fp2 /= fp4) call abort()
> by
> if (abs (fp2 - fp4)/fp2 > epsilon(fp2)) call abort()
> works which allows for a minor deviation of the value.
This helps, but now we run into the next abort. Adding another set of
print's shows
1.41421356237309504880168872420969798
1.41421356237309504880168872420969779
Changing the abort() conditions both times allows the test to pass, also
tested with the prints commented again and the appropriate runtest
invocation on i386-pc-solaris2.9, i386-pc-solaris2.10, and
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
The quad_3.f90 test aborts here:
#5 0x080511b1 in test_qp ()
at /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90:28
28 if (a-b(1) /= 0.0_qp .or. c-b(1) /= 0.0_qp) call abort()
Uncommenting the prints shows:
same value read again: 1.18973149535723176508575932662800647E+0932
1.18973149535723176508575932662800647E+0932
difference: looks OK now -1.87718493982104061421441469311027910E+0898
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-13 11:20 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2013-02-13 12:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-13 12:06 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-14 10:13 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-13 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-13 12:03:27 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 12:03:18 2013
New Revision: 196011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196011
Log:
2013-02-13 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
PR fortran/56204
* gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90: Use "< epsilon" instead of "==".
* gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90: Ditto.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-13 12:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-13 12:06 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-14 10:13 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-02-13 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-13 12:06:02 UTC ---
Thanks for testing. It looks as if it should have been FIXED by the committed
patch. Please re-open if the issue still occurs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/56204] [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-13 12:06 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-02-14 10:13 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2013-02-14 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-02-14 10:13:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-13 12:06:02 UTC ---
> Thanks for testing. It looks as if it should have been FIXED by the committed
> patch. Please re-open if the issue still occurs.
The test now passes on i386-pc-solaris2.9, i386-pc-solaris2.10, and
sparc-sun-solaris2.11.
Thanks.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-14 10:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-04 13:32 [Bug fortran/56204] New: [4.8 regression] gfortran.dg/quad_[23].f90 FAIL on Solaris 9/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-08 15:47 ` [Bug fortran/56204] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-12 19:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-13 11:20 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-02-13 12:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-13 12:06 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-14 10:13 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).