public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
@ 2002-09-06 22:15 billingd
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: billingd @ 2002-09-06 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David.Billinghurst, gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, gdr, ljrittle
Synopsis: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
State-Changed-From-To: feedback->closed
State-Changed-By: billingd
State-Changed-When: Fri Sep 6 22:15:42 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Now fixed. No patch to testsuite required.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
@ 2002-09-05 12:06 Loren James Rittle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Loren James Rittle @ 2002-09-05 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ljrittle; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/7805; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
To: gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Cc: David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:00:47 -0500 (CDT)
In article <m3wuq03ing.fsf@soliton.integrable-solutions.net>,
Gabriel Dos Reis<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
> | Since this is
> | also an ix86 machine, it doesn't surprise me. Consider a
> | patch to use the looser check specialization for your
> | platform (as long as you can rationalize it), pre-approved.
> Please, NO, don't do that. I explained the reasons of the failure in
> another message which should by now be recorded in audit trail.
OK, of course, I defer to this. BTW, it is not in the audit trail for
PR/7805 as visible from the WWW interface.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
@ 2002-09-05 2:26 Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2002-09-05 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ljrittle; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/7805; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
Date: 05 Sep 2002 11:11:47 +0200
ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org writes:
| Since this is
| also an ix86 machine, it doesn't surprise me. Consider a
| patch to use the looser check specialization for your
| platform (as long as you can rationalize it), pre-approved.
Please, NO, don't do that. I explained the reasons of the failure in
another message which should by now be recorded in audit trail.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
@ 2002-09-04 19:05 ljrittle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ljrittle @ 2002-09-04 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David.Billinghurst, gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, gdr, ljrittle, nobody
Synopsis: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->ljrittle
Responsible-Changed-By: ljrittle
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Sep 4 19:05:39 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Mine.
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: ljrittle
State-Changed-When: Wed Sep 4 19:05:39 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Any gcc code scheduling change could affect this test on
CPUs that truncates FP differently depending on where the
value lives (or other related reasons). Since this is
also an ix86 machine, it doesn't surprise me. Consider a
patch to use the looser check specialization for your
platform (as long as you can rationalize it), pre-approved.
To others that complain about this test failing on your
platform, David has exposed how to debug it and "silence"
it properly given the testing framework in that area.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
@ 2002-09-01 21:26 David.Billinghurst
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: David.Billinghurst @ 2002-09-01 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-gnats; +Cc: gdr
>Number: 7805
>Category: libstdc++
>Synopsis: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Sun Sep 01 21:26:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: David Billinghurst
>Release: gcc-3.3
>Organization:
>Environment:
i686-pc-cygwin
>Description:
Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution now fails on cygwin with assertion "extrema_min == limits_min" failed. Stepping through with the debugger shows it is failing for the long double case.
If I change the test to use the long double specialization that FreeBSD uses then the test passes, so things can't be too bad.
I am unsure if this is best fix, but it may be good enough.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-07 5:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-06 22:15 libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin billingd
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-05 12:06 Loren James Rittle
2002-09-05 2:26 Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-09-04 19:05 ljrittle
2002-09-01 21:26 David.Billinghurst
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).