[Bug testsuite/59160] New: The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[Bug testsuite/59160] New: The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

            Bug ID: 59160
           Summary: The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails
                    on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
                CC: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org, iains at gcc dot gnu.org
              Host: x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*
            Target: x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*
             Build: x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*

The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c (r204863) fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)* with the error:

/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c:10:20:
fatal error: malloc.h: No such file or directory

It succeeds with the following patch

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c   
2013-11-15 23:09:51.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c    2013-11-17
12:29:18.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@
 #if HAVE_IO
 #include <stdio.h>
 #endif
-#include <malloc.h>
+/* #include <malloc.h> */
+#include <stdlib.h>

 int
 reduction_simd (int *a)

Is the line

/* FIXME: This test has been xfailed until reductions are fixed.  */

still relevant? I don't see any xfail in the source.

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[aldyh at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com> ---
> Is the line
>
> /* FIXME: This test has been xfailed until reductions are fixed.  */
>
> still relevant? I don't see any xfail in the source.
>

The FIXME is not relevant anymore.  Can you post a patch to gcc-patches 
with your fix as well as removing the FIXME note?

Thanks.

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> The FIXME is not relevant anymore.  Can you post a patch to gcc-patches 
> with your fix as well as removing the FIXME note?

Is the use of stdlib.h OK for other targets?

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[aldyh at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com> ---
On 11/18/13 09:02, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> The FIXME is not relevant anymore.  Can you post a patch to gcc-patches
>> with your fix as well as removing the FIXME note?
>
> Is the use of stdlib.h OK for other targets?
>

You need to post it on gcc-patches because I am not a maintainer for 
this piece of code.

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> You need to post it on gcc-patches because I am not a maintainer for 
> this piece of code.

Well, the test is yours. Who should I CC besides Iain Sandoe and Mike Stump?

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[aldyh at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com> ---
On 11/18/13 09:45, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> You need to post it on gcc-patches because I am not a maintainer for
>> this piece of code.
>
> Well, the test is yours. Who should I CC besides Iain Sandoe and Mike Stump?
>

Ideally a testsuite or global write maintainer should ok it.

However, since it's such a small change... Your failure is on Darwin. 
If your change passes on, say...Linux, OK as obvious.

Aldy

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> If your change passes on, say...Linux, OK as obvious.

That's the critical point: I cannot test the patch "on, say...Linux".

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > If your change passes on, say...Linux, OK as obvious.
> 
> That's the critical point: I cannot test the patch "on, say...Linux".

I'll check it out on Linux.

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I'll check it out on Linux.

Thanks. BTW the test fails also on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (it was indeed
expected).

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > I'll check it out on Linux.
> 
> Thanks. BTW the test fails also on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (it was indeed
> expected).

no difference in results for "make check RUNTESTFLAGS=cilk-plus.exp" on
x86_64-linux-gnu after applying the change (FAOD, reduction-3.c passes for both
c and c++).

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[law at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |law at redhat dot com
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Patch installed.

[Bug testsuite/59160] The test c-c++-common/cilk-plus/PS/reduction-3.c fails on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|3)*.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160

--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Patch installed.

Thanks.