* [Bug fortran/94324] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-25 12:55 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-27 10:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-25 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-25 12:55 ` [Bug fortran/94324] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-27 10:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 7:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-27 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> I just remembered that between 20191031 (r277679) and 20191101 (r277705) a
> couple of Fortran tests regressed on 32-bit Solaris/x86:
Hmm, that's odd. If I look at this range, there was no libgfortran change and
under gcc/ only an OpenMP change and gcc/config/aarch64.
> However, given that I know nothing about fortran, it would be very helpful
> to have some guidance on where to look.
I hope the following notes help.
* * *
> +FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 -O0 execution test
This test is rather old (Feb 2018) — however, there were changes recently,
especially to the "g0" output.
> Note: The following floating-point exceptions are signalling:
> IEEE_UNDERFLOW_FLAG
> STOP 6
if (test (1.0_8, 0) /= 0) STOP 6
Here, 1.0 (double-prevision) is run as:
do i = 0, count
write (s,*) x
read (s,*) y
if (y /= x) res = res + 1
x = nearest(x,huge(x))
end do
Namely: the variable is written out (with default output precision) into the
string "s" and read-in again. – The test passes if the written-read variable
and the original variable compare equal.
For count=200 steps, the same is repeated for the next higher variable
[nearest() = POSIX's nextafter()]. – Seemingly, one of those fails.
Suggestion: Add (after the "read"):
print *, i, s, x == y
print *, x
print *, y
and - to stop directly after the first fail -
if (y /= x) stop
and have a look at the output.
* * *
> +FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_1.f08 -O0 execution test
> STOP 3
>
> #2 0x0805143d in MAIN__ ()
> at /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_1.f08:11
> 11 if (buffer.ne.":0.33333333333333331:") STOP 3
> (gdb) p buffer
> $1 = ':0.', '3' <repeats 16 times>, '2:', ' ' <repeats 29 times>
This is also an older test (Feb 2018).
write(buffer, string) ':',1.0_8/3.0_8,':'
if (buffer.ne.":0.33333333333333331:") STOP 3
This test case writes a ':' + 1./3. in double-precision + ':' to buffer.
For each input, "g0" is used.
The expected output is ':' followed by the printed number + ':' (plus padding
by spaces on the right). The assumption is
":0.33333333333333331:" - this output
":0.33333333333333332:" - you get
which also sounds fine. — I don't know whether it has to be '1' or whether '2'
is acceptable as well, one would have to look at the bit representation.
I personally would be fine to accept ...2 as well.
@ Jerry + Thomas: What do you think?
* * *
> +FAIL: gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 -Os execution test
> STOP 15
ref10u = 0.1000000000000000000014_xp
round = 'nearest'
call t()
if (rnd10 .and. (r10p /= ref10u .or. r10m /= -ref10u)) STOP 15
which does:
str = "0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1"
read (str, *,round=round) r4p, r8p, r10p, r16p
str = "-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1"
read (str, *,round=round) r4m, r8m, r10m, r16m
Namely, the string '0.1' and '-0.1' is read in as 80-bit floating type ("long
double", x87 floating-type number.)
[Or actually: it a this if both 80 bit and 128 bit floating-point numbers are
available; otherweise it is either a 32bit (non available) or 64bit (either
available) number. But as the previous test passes, I assume that it is a 80bit
number in you case.]
0.1 is not representable in binary floating-point numbers and round="nearest"
means:
"the value resulting from conversion shall be the closer of the two nearest
representable values if one is closer than the other. If the two nearest
representable values are equidistant from the original value, it is9processor
dependent which one of them is chosen."
The code assume that
'0.1' becomes 0.1000000000000000000014
'-0.1' becomes -0.1000000000000000000014
while you get: 0.100000000000000005551
-0.100000000000000005551
this number is suspiciously close to the
expected value for a 64bit floating-point number:
0.10000000000000001
Thus, either 80bit FP numbers are not properly supported or
the output of 80bit FP numbers does not work. However, the
reference value could properly be stored, hmm.
> #2 0x08051f41 in MAIN__ ()
> at /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/round_4.f90:100
> 100 if (rnd10 .and. (r10p /= ref10u .or. r10m /= -ref10u)) STOP 15
>
> (gdb) p rnd10
> $1 = .TRUE.
> (gdb) p r10p
> $2 = 0.100000000000000005551
> (gdb) p ref10u
> $3 = 0.100000000000000000001
> (gdb) p r10m
> $4 = -0.100000000000000005551
> (gdb) p ref10u
> $5 = 0.100000000000000000001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-25 12:55 ` [Bug fortran/94324] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-27 10:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 7:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-07 11:56 ` [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 7:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-05-07 11:56 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-13 20:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-05-07 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.0 |10.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-05-07 11:56 ` [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-07-13 20:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2020-07-13 20:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-07-13 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2020-07-13
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-07-13 20:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2020-07-13 20:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2020-07-13 21:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2020-07-13 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
them). However, I'd like to keep the PR open until that's confirmed.
Didn't have time to investigate yet.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-07-13 20:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2020-07-13 21:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-07-13 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
>
> The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
> them). However, I'd like to keep the PR open until that's confirmed.
> Didn't have time to investigate yet.
Shouldn't the component moved to target?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-07-13 21:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-07-23 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.2 |10.3
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.2 is released, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94324] [10/11 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-07-23 6:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-31 17:37 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12 " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-08 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.3 |10.4
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-08 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-05-31 17:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2022-06-28 10:40 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-25 15:26 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13/14 " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2021-05-31 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|fortran |target
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Shouldn't the component moved to target?
No feedback for almost a year, doing so.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-05-31 17:37 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12 " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2022-06-28 10:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-25 15:26 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13/14 " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13/14 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86
2020-03-25 12:55 [Bug fortran/94324] New: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/default_format_1.f90 etc. FAIL on 32-bit Solaris/x86 ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-28 10:40 ` [Bug target/94324] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-04-25 15:26 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-04-25 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #4)
> > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
>
> The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
> them). However, I'd like to keep the PR open until that's confirmed.
> Didn't have time to investigate yet.
I just noticed that the bug hasn't occurred after 20221014. Thus closing
as fixed (as I said, most likely upstream in Studio cc, thus fixing the libc
build).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread