RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Enable static-pie.

[Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 23:54:49 PDT (-0700), yanzhang.wang@intel.com wrote:
> Thanks Palmer.
> 
>> You can set TIMEOUTFACTOR, qemu-system is a lot slower than hardware.
>>
> 
> I'll try to set a high value. It's really too slow.
> 
>> Which board are you running on?
> 
> I use the board licheepi 4a with Debian 12 to do the testing.

Those T-Head cores have a bit of a reputation for ignoring the ISA, so 
it wouldn't be super surprising if something odd is going on with 
floating point.  If the tests are clean on QEMU and fail on the C910 
then we should get to the bottom of it, though.

Last time I had to chase down an FPU bug I used TestFloat 
<http://www.jhauser.us/arithmetic/TestFloat.html>.  I'm not sure if 
there's something better?

+Edwin, as I think he's got Lichee Pi 4a up to benchmark misaligned 
accesses for that GCC patch.

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:31 AM
>> To: Wang, Yanzhang <yanzhang.wang@intel.com>; DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>;
>> Darius Rad <darius@bluespec.com>
>> Cc: adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org; libc-alpha@sourceware.org
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Enable static-pie.
>> 
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 20:17:16 PDT (-0700), yanzhang.wang@intel.com wrote:
>> > I took some time to test the master with binfmt_misc and qemu system
>> mode.
>> > Both of them can't match the requirements (<= 6 failures).
>> >
>> > - most of cases with binfmt_misc fail with abort.
>> 
>> QEMU user mode isn't a valid test suite target for glibc, there's lots of
>> failures due to the emulation.  I know it's confusing that riscv-gnu-
>> toolchain uses it, that come up when support was added.
>> 
>> > - most of cases with qemu system fail with timed out.
>> 
>> You can set TIMEOUTFACTOR, qemu-system is a lot slower than hardware.
>> 
>> > And also tested with my risc-v board and still fails 70+ cases and
>> > most of them are math accuracy issue.
>> 
>> Which board are you running on?
>> 
>> > So Adhemerval, do you know how to setup the environment to reproduce
>> > the <= 6 failures ? Maybe I lost some important steps. Thanks very
>> much :).
>> 
>> +DJ and Darius, who usually report test results.  They've probably got
>> the best idea of how to set things up, but I don't remember this
>> requiring anything fancy.
>> 
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Yanzhang
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:46 PM
>> >> To: Wang, Yanzhang <yanzhang.wang@intel.com>; Palmer Dabbelt
>> >> <palmer@dabbelt.com>; libc-alpha@sourceware.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Enable static-pie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 13/08/23 09:20, Wang, Yanzhang via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> >> > Hi Palmer,
>> >> >
>> >> > I have tested the commit(542b110585) with this patch. The results
>> >> > like below,
>> >> >
>> >> > Summary of test results:
>> >> >     189 FAIL
>> >> >    4328 PASS
>> >> >     101 UNSUPPORTED
>> >> >      16 XFAIL
>> >> >       2 XPASS
>> >> >
>> >> > And the commit(542b110585)'s results like below,
>> >> >
>> >> > Summary of test results:
>> >> >     189 FAIL
>> >> >    4326 PASS
>> >> >     101 UNSUPPORTED
>> >> >      16 XFAIL
>> >> >       2 XPASS
>> >> >
>> >> > The binutils's commit is 2db20b97f1d and gcc's commit is bf36656a14a.
>> >> >
>> >> > I use the command make check-glibc-linux in riscv-gnu-toolchain.
>> >> > Not sure is that acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> The riscv reports for 2.38 release [1] list at maximum of 6 FAIL for
>> >> all the ABI variants.  The 189 failures you are reporting means that
>> >> your environment is either missing some setup (for instance, copying
>> >> the libgcc_s.so and libstd++.so on the build folder so C++ and tests
>> >> that require pthread_cancel or backtrace works correctly) or it is
>> >> not properly configured.
>> >>
>> >> Please sort this out first, since with that amount of failures is not
>> >> straightforward to check whether static-pie is really working as
>> intended.
>> >