[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161113002523.GP1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:25:23 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: x86_64 gcc test failures at the end of gcc-7 stage 1
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 06:43:50PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> my analysis of gcc test failures i've seen on x86_64-linux-musl
> (gcc, g++, gfortran, libstdc++):
>
> unwind/throw across signal handler (sigreturn unwind info is missing in musl)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-10.c execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-11.c execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-8.c execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cleanup-9.c execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/eh/sighandle.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/eh/sighandle.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/eh/sighandle.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-10.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-10.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-10.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-11.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-11.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-11.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-8.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-8.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-8.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-9.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-9.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/cleanup-9.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C -std=gnu++11 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C -std=gnu++98 execution test
I think these are not supported/intended to work.
> throw from libc callback (pthread_once unwind info is missing)
> FAIL: 30_threads/async/forced_unwind.cc execution test
> FAIL: 30_threads/packaged_task/forced_unwind.cc execution test
This failure is expected/intentional. Even if there were unwind info,
it would not be safe to jump out and leave the state of the once
object inconsistent.
> missing ucontext api (makecontext, swapcontext)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/split-5.c (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/split-5.c compilation failed to produce executable
>
> missing fortify api (__memcpy_chk)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/strlenopt-2f.c (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/strlenopt-2f.c compilation failed to produce executable
>
> no short wchar support (__WCHAR_TYPE__ is ignored)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/utf-array-short-wchar.c (test for errors, line 39)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/utf-array-short-wchar.c (test for errors, line 41)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/utf-array-short-wchar.c (test for excess errors)
Also intentional/a feature. :-)
> math_errhandling & MATH_ERRNO is not supported
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -Os execution test
Likewise.
> testcase redefines __inline
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-2.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-13.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-14.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-23.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-24.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-25.c (test for excess errors)
Would refraining from defining it when __GNUC__ is defined fix these
tests? We could consider that. Or we could just use a different name
for it internally, e.g.:
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L || defined(__cplusplus)
#define ___inline inline
#elif defined(__GNUC__)
#define ___inline __inline
#else
#define ___inline
#endif
> math/complex precision test failures
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -Os execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 -Os execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90 -Os execution test
> FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/13450.cc execution test
To be fixed eventually, I guess?
> gnu vs generic c++ locale abi diff
> FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check
Probably a non-issue, and almost certainly doesn't make sense to
change (break) at this point anyway.
> FILE is incomplete
> FAIL: 27_io/headers/cstdio/types_std.cc (test for excess errors)
Intentional.
> gcc plugins fail with cross libc testing (when running tests on glibc host)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/*
> FAIL: g++.dg/plugin/*
>
> known gcc-trunk failures
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr68279.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/vrp7.c scan-ipa-dump-times cp "Setting value range of param 0 \\\\[-10, 9\\\\]" 1
>
> unknown:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69270-3.c scan-tree-dump-times uncprop1 ", 1" 4
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/event_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single -latomic execution test
Not sure about any of these.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
