* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 8:45 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 8:46 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 8:45 ` [Bug libfortran/59227] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 8:46 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 9:21 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 8:45 ` [Bug libfortran/59227] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 8:46 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 9:21 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 9:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 9:21 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 9:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 9:51 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 9:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 9:51 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 9:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 9:51 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 9:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 10:13 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 9:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 10:13 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 10:22 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 10:13 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 10:22 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 10:27 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 10:22 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 10:27 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 10:34 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 10:27 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 10:34 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 10:56 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 10:34 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 10:56 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 11:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 10:56 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 11:08 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:08 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 11:19 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:08 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:19 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 11:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:19 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 11:38 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:38 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-21 11:43 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:38 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:43 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 11:49 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:43 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 11:49 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 12:02 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 11:49 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 12:02 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-11-21 12:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-11-21 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 12:02 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-11-21 12:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-22 9:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-21 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-21 12:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-22 9:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-04 8:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 9:56 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-22 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-22 9:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-06-04 8:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-01 9:56 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-04 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/59227] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
2013-11-21 8:35 [Bug libfortran/59227] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-04 8:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-01 9:56 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2022-06-01 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread