[Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

            Bug ID: 59227
           Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90  -O0
                    execution test
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libfortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: schwab@linux-m68k.org
            Blocks: 49024
            Target: ia64-*-*

$ gcc/gfortran -Bgcc/ -Bia64-suse-linux/./libgfortran/
../gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -fno-diagnostics-show-caret
-fdiagnostics-color=never -O0 -fno-range-check -ffree-line-length-none -O0
-Bia64-suse-linux/./libgfortran/.libs -Lia64-suse-linux/./libgfortran/.libs
-Bia64-suse-linux/./libquadmath/.libs -Lia64-suse-linux/./libquadmath/.libs -lm
-o ./erf_3.exe
$
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=ia64-suse-linux/libgfortran/.libs:ia64-suse-linux/libquadmath/.libs
./erf_3.exe 
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   1.00000000000000000000000000000000000E+0000
   1.00000000000000000000000000000000000E+0000
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   0.00000000000000000000000000000000000      
   1.00000000000000000000000000000000000E+0000
   3.11594175678318376063235411046565406E+0955

Program aborted. Backtrace:
#0  0x200000000008084F
#1  0x200000000008477F
#2  0x20000000002665DF
#3  0x400000000000161F in check.850 at erf_3.F90:?
#4  0x4000000000001F3F in MAIN__ at erf_3.F90:?
Aborted

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Nov 21 08:45:00 2013
New Revision: 205193

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205193&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR libfortran/59227
    * intrinsics/erfc_scaled.c (erfc_scaled_r16): Don't define if
    __float128 is not available.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/erfc_scaled.c

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on trunk. Sorry, and thanks Andreas for the report!

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-11-21
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
That's a different bug.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What does this output, when compiled with "-fno-range-check
-ffree-line-length-none -O0"?

$ cat test.f90
program test
  real(kind=16) :: x
  x = 12
  print *, erfc_scaled(real(12,kind=16))
  print *, erfc_scaled(x)
end program test

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
   4.68542210148937626195884133993966578E-0002
  -1.87533922948603221391158058278771595E+0920

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
>    4.68542210148937626195884133993966578E-0002
>   -1.87533922948603221391158058278771595E+0920

And this (at -O2)?

__float128 foo (__float128 x)
{
  __float128 sum = 0, oldsum;
  __float128 inv2x2 = 1 / (2 * x * x);
  __float128 fac = 1;
  int n = 1;

  while (n < 200)
  {
    fac *= - (2*n - 1) * inv2x2;
    oldsum = sum;
    sum += fac;

    __builtin_printf ("%lg\n", (double) fac);
    if (sum == oldsum)
      break;

    n++;
  }

  return (1 + sum) / x * (1.1283791670955125738961589031215452Q / 2);
}

int main (void)
{
  __float128 x = 12;
  x = foo(x);
  __builtin_printf ("%lg\n", (double) x);
}

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
-0.00347222
3.6169e-05
-6.27934e-07
1.52623e-08
-4.76946e-10
1.82167e-11
-8.22281e-13
4.28272e-14
-2.52799e-15
1.66777e-16
-1.21608e-17
9.71178e-19
-8.43037e-20
7.90347e-21
-7.95835e-22
8.56628e-23
-9.81553e-24
1.19286e-24
-1.53249e-25
2.07525e-26
-2.95435e-27
4.41101e-28
-6.8922e-29
1.12477e-29
-1.91367e-30
3.38879e-31
-6.23632e-32
1.19096e-32
-2.35711e-33
4.82881e-34
-1.02277e-34
2.23731e-35
-5.04948e-36
1.17471e-36
-2.8144e-37
6.93827e-38
0.0468542

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So the calculation inside __gfortran_erfc_scaled_r16 is correct, but the result
is printed incorrectly. Can you try this:

program test
  real(kind=16) :: x
  x = 10.9_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
  x = 11.9_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
  x = 12.0_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
  x = 12.1_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
  x = 13.1_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
  x = 14.1_16 ; print *, erfc_scaled(x)
end program test

Also, can you confirm that binary128 is not the same as long double on ia64?

(I've sent a request to reopen my old account on the compile farm… If this
drags out, I'll investigate on my own there. But for now, I don't have access
to an ia64.)
>From gcc-bugs-return-435336-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 10:25:25 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435336-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6220 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 10:25:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6195 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 10:25:21 -0000
From: "schwab@linux-m68k.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90  -O0  execution test
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: schwab@linux-m68k.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
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:
Message-ID: <bug-59227-4-jRYWm2TJtf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02113.txt.bz2
Content-length: 279

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idY227

--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
Looks like inv2x2 is wrong in _gfortran_erfc_scaled_r16:

(gdb) i reg r42 r43
r42            0x0      0
r43            0x4007200000000000       4613691527636451328

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
   5.15453772226367323012693682499968245E-0002
   4.72452324840876699523132987063922456E-0002
  -1.87533922948603221391158058278771595E+0920
  -5.09942677661379357690770320803840300E+0921
  -2.70969365071138516780674252318715535E+0935
  -1.40653905502094549174911373980686654E+0948

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #11 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So, it looks like the same code that works fine in an external C program, is
miscompiled in libgfortran's _gfortran_erfc_scaled_r16. Do you agree?

Can you remove the __builtin_printf call inside foo() in comment #6, and
compile with the same flags as used to compile libgfortran? For me, that would
be "-std=gnu99 -fcx-fortran-rules -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -g -O2"
Just to be sure…
>From gcc-bugs-return-435339-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 10:34:05 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435339-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15351 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 10:34:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14638 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 10:33:05 -0000
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/19430] V_MAY_DEF (taking address of var) causes missing uninitialized warning
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 3.4.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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:
Message-ID: <bug-19430-4-lWieyDDWtv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-19430-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-19430-4@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
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02116.txt.bz2
Content-length: 550

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430

--- Comment #22 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> > This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
> 
> Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?

Actually, with trunk revision 203899, only the last 3 tests now get the warning
(those corresponding to -Wuninitialized). The first one (which should be a "may
be uninitialized") is still silent.
>From gcc-bugs-return-435341-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 10:39:38 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435341-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20553 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 10:39:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20485 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 10:39:34 -0000
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/19430] V_MAY_DEF (taking address of var) causes missing uninitialized warning
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:39:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 3.4.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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:
Message-ID: <bug-19430-4-WHUWxQ7yqv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-19430-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-19430-4@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
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02118.txt.bz2
Content-length: 359

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430

--- Comment #23 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> ---
BTW, I suppose that in this test, -Wuninitialized should be changed to
"-Wuninitialized -Wmaybe-uninitialized" in case it is decided later that
-Wuninitialized no longer enables -Wmaybe-uninitialized (see PR59223 about
that).
>From gcc-bugs-return-435342-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 10:51:33 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435342-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29053 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 10:51:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27268 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 10:50:09 -0000
From: "schwab@linux-m68k.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90  -O0  execution test
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: schwab@linux-m68k.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
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: keywords
Message-ID: <bug-59227-4-fTbHdI5ob2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02119.txt.bz2
Content-length: 514

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idY227

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code

--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
1 / (2 * x * x) is calling __divtf3 from glibc, which operates on long double,
not quad float.  The function from libgcc.a should have been called instead.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #13 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> 1 / (2 * x * x) is calling __divtf3 from glibc, which operates on long
> double, not quad float.  The function from libgcc.a should have been called
> instead.

Because ia64 uses TFmode for both long double and __float128, while i386 uses
XFmode for long double, is that it?

I'm not sure what I can do, then… and don't understand why this does not happen
in the standalone test case in comment #6.
>From gcc-bugs-return-435344-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 10:58:21 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435344-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5284 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 10:58:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 3166 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 10:57:06 -0000
From: "schwab@linux-m68k.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90  -O0  execution test
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: schwab@linux-m68k.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
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: keywords
Message-ID: <bug-59227-4-1BQm7YLluu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02121.txt.bz2
Content-length: 539

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idY227

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|wrong-code                  |

--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
I think this can be considered a glibc bug, which should not have defined
__divtf3 in the first place (the function should have been called __divxf3),
and  the test should be XFAILd on ia64.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #15 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #14)
> I think this can be considered a glibc bug, which should not have defined
> __divtf3 in the first place (the function should have been called __divxf3),
> and  the test should be XFAILd on ia64.

Is "ia64-*-linux" the right triplet? If you can confirm that the following
patch works as expect on your system, I'll commit it:

Index: erf_3.F90
===================================================================
--- erf_3.F90    (revision 205151)
+++ erf_3.F90    (working copy)
@@ -1,20 +1,29 @@
-! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-do run { xfail spu-*-* ia64-*-linux } }
 ! { dg-options "-fno-range-check -ffree-line-length-none -O0" }
 ! { dg-add-options ieee }
 !
 ! Check that simplification functions and runtime library agree on ERF,
 ! ERFC and ERFC_SCALED, for quadruple-precision.
+!
+! XFAILed for SPU targets because our library implementation of
+! the double-precision erf/erfc functions is not accurate enough.
+!
+! XFAILed for IA64 Linux because of a glibc bug:
+! http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

 program test
+  use, intrinsic :: iso_fortran_env
   implicit none

-  real(kind=16) :: x16
+  ! QP will be the largest supported real kind, possibly real(kind=16)
+  integer, parameter :: qp = real_kinds(ubound(real_kinds,dim=1))
+  real(kind=qp) :: x

 #define CHECK(a) \
-  x16 = a ; \
-  call check(erf(real(a,kind=16)), erf(x16)) ; \
-  call check(erfc(real(a,kind=16)), erfc(x16)) ; \
-  call check(erfc_scaled(real(a,kind=16)), erfc_scaled(x16))
+  x = a ; \
+  call check(erf(real(a,kind=qp)), erf(x)) ; \
+  call check(erfc(real(a,kind=qp)), erfc(x)) ; \
+  call check(erfc_scaled(real(a,kind=qp)), erfc_scaled(x))

   CHECK(0.0)
   CHECK(0.9)
@@ -36,7 +45,7 @@ program test
 contains

   subroutine check (a, b)
-    real(kind=16), intent(in) :: a, b
+    real(kind=qp), intent(in) :: a, b
     print *, abs(a-b) / spacing(a)
     if (abs(a - b) > 10 * spacing(a)) call abort
   end subroutine

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
Perhaps a suitable workaround would be to force linking the right __divtf3 into
libgfortran.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #17 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
ia64 was using TFmode for 80 bit long double before r72916, so the __divtf3
name sticked for compatibility.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #18 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Nov 21 11:37:07 2013
New Revision: 205210

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205210&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR libfortran/59227
    * gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90: XFAIL on spu-* and ia64-*-linux*.
    Make more generic for other platforms.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #19 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #16)
> Perhaps a suitable workaround would be to force linking the right __divtf3
> into libgfortran.

I'm not sure how to force linking in libgfortran, but if it helps reliably fix
quad-precision math on ia64, that sounds like a good option.

Meanwhile, I've xfail'ed the test (also on spu-* due to a library issue there,
similar to erf_2.F90).

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
It's not really a glibc bug, but a compatilibity wart.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #21 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
> I'm not sure how to force linking in libgfortran

Add libgcc/divtf3_s.o to the link line.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #22 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
Actually it appears to be a libgcc bug.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.9.0

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #23 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I saw in your daily tests that the XFAIL indeed silences the failure. Closing
as fixed, will un-XFAIL when PR59230 is fixed.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227

--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Andreas Schwab <schwab@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ecf5229723ec99e6b5099dd68d48bd925da6b0d

commit r11-895-g0ecf5229723ec99e6b5099dd68d48bd925da6b0d
Author: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date:   Thu Nov 21 15:15:40 2013 +0100

    Missing __divtf3@@GCC_4.4.0 on ia64

    gcc/testsuite/
            PR libfortran/59227
            * gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90: Remove XFAIL on ia64-*-linux*.

    libgcc/
            PR target/59230
            PR libfortran/59227
            * config/ia64/t-softfp-compat (softfp_file_list): Filter out
            soft-fp/divtf3.c.
            (LIB2ADD): Add config/ia64/divtf3.c.
            * config/ia64/divtf3.c: New file.

[Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59227
Bug 59227 depends on bug 59230, which changed state.

Bug 59230 Summary: __divtf3@@GCC_4.4.0 missing from libgcc_s.so.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59230

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