From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BDDC3858417; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1BDDC3858417 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1BDDC3858417 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713862690; cv=none; b=m3itSgV2r+pD7lDhqCYUox/9kQxEt3SppcxybR1E3BmCIm2hVXJyXAbwc1UIRNePd7qdnq9EubQ5HWX3kFafWSolN4h0VqzZ5AsVWpw75O9tJ/o63iLQGcLMS8lbWXtZ5j/BO8nHqbkJqndfz0ete8+jkQnVE0WaY0FcLtVGV7M= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713862690; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1pT/0ckCWTenluctphYPD0F5/bsoZ9es2FYRELBftlI=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:MIME-Version; b=U8kIG0roeUQQz14l4fX2RK8cAPdlLW0f9T+C/ctNtgI9y8nI5VOhx3HvRvx58pXa2ftEphpTXugPnorJD3C9BpMmhheku3ut+ZVL+fU5Aj7V8HrqXZ90MGnHBpWv+p1b0JTWoTFLR8Xjnarh0NYvefV4UWBbd5I4dOmDrPgCeD8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 43N8gWEj023809; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:03 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=tBvH7lYaAZJkIH+JHlm0utd8JXJ/1I69UJoHVhpaUoE=; b=hJfEtZgCDTQ6jBr0gOLQbj3lcvKOr82wvdAzzCGWCHsTe8TkpDn3D2gTwF18Ng9M24VY 7M6P/uo623c7P8sA6FKWduZ2kIin9uUa0KsyPgFBigfFUc34D5YtZmOi4MxWvV6/8scM Yze0uIDSeewK8vTGqD71EQQA/ka5Rz8HiJMGqF+Tih83tkDojk5xNlqewDRNuzpNCMnb SOhOv8ZyKFUorNd/7rCHl70vrBxM11Oy2xUh9kVmyuO27ABlVTpYvZUFyqYv72EAAbgZ Ejl+NMkHEMwiakBPGxyCxjWDoc0X05bqqKlG4ASBNZfgdfVgSFIxZRdHpawTnC3DpU0g yA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xp9q400vq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:02 +0000 Received: from m0356517.ppops.net (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 43N8vubH018873; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:02 GMT Received: from ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5b.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.91]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xp9q400vm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 43N7YoC2023051; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:00 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xms1nvmnv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:58:00 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.100]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 43N8vuZa47251746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:58 GMT Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80F020040; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28E620043; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.55.181] (unknown [9.200.55.181]) by smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7df48597-7412-7b97-272a-4d92b6e87ee9@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:57:52 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfail fetestexcept test - ppc always uses fcmpu Content-Language: en-US To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Rainer Orth , Mike Stump , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool , Kewen Lin , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Joseph Myers References: From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: JXQwaZn2YtW2xQLQsRv2R1QNqMUjZ5jd X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: AMhKWaJPRqIOiaaQbY0RDqwQWwm1C7s5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-04-23_07,2024-04-22_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2404010000 definitions=main-2404230024 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_SHORT,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, on 2024/4/22 18:00, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Mar 10, 2021, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> operand exception for quiet NaN. I couldn't find any evidence that >>> the rs6000 backend ever outputs fcmpo. Therefore, I'm adding the same >>> execution xfail marker to this test. > >> In my view, such an XFAIL (for a GCC bug as opposed to an environmental >> issue) should have a comment pointing to a corresponding open bug in GCC >> Bugzilla. In this case, that's bug 58684. > > Thanks for the suggestion, yeah, that makes sense. Fixed in v2 below. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566523.html > Ping?-ish > > > gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c tests that a compare with NaNf doesn't set an > exception using builtin compare intrinsics, and that it does when > using regular compare operators. > > That doesn't seem to be expected to work on powerpc targets. It fails > on GNU/Linux, it's marked to be skipped on AIX, and a similar test, > gcc.dg/torture/pr93133.c, has the execution test xfailed for all of > powerpc*-*-*. > > In this test, the functions that use intrinsics for the compare end up > with the same code as the one that uses compare operators, using > fcmpu, a floating compare that, unlike fcmpo, does not set the invalid > operand exception for quiet NaN. I couldn't find any evidence that > the rs6000 backend ever outputs fcmpo. Therefore, I'm adding the same > execution xfail marker to this test. > > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and ppc64el-linux-gnu. Also tested with > gcc-13 on ppc64-vx7r2 and ppc-vx7r2. Ok to install? > > > for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > PR target/58684 > * gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c: Expect execution fail on > powerpc*-*-*. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c > index 1411fcaa3966c..f188faa3ccf47 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > -/* { dg-do run } */ > +/* { dg-do run { xfail powerpc*-*-* } } */ > +/* The ppc xfail is because of PR target/58684. */ OK, though the proposed comment is slightly different from what's in the related commit r8-6445-g86145a19abf39f. :) Thanks! BR, Kewen > /* { dg-add-options ieee } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target fenv_exceptions } */ > /* { dg-skip-if "fenv" { powerpc-ibm-aix* } } */ > >