> -----Original Message----- > From: Tamar Christina > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:05 AM > To: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com>; gcc- > patc...@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo > Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com> > > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:01 AM > > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; > Kyrylo > > Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; Richard Sandiford > > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: xfail modes_1.f90 [PR107071] > > > > On 15/02/2024 10:57, Tamar Christina wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > This test has never worked on AArch64 since the day it was committed. It > > > has > > > a number of issues that prevent it from working on AArch64: > > > > > > 1. IEEE does not require that FP operations raise a SIGFPE for FP > > > operations, > > > only that an exception is raised somehow. > > > > > > 2. Most Arm designed cores don't raise SIGFPE and instead set a status > > > register > > > and some partner cores raise a SIGILL instead. > > > > > > 3. The way it checks for feenableexcept doesn't really work for AArch64. > > > > > > As such this test doesn't seem to really provide much value on AArch64 so > > > we > > > should just xfail it. > > > > > > Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues. > > > > > > Ok for master? > > > > Wouldn't it be better to just skip the test. XFAIL just adds clutter to > > verbose > output > > and suggests that someday the tools might be fixed for this case. > > > > Better still would be a new dg-requires fp_exceptions_raise_sigfpe as a > > guard for > > the test. >
It looks like this is similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 so I'll just similarly skip it. --- inline copy of patch --- diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 index 205c47f38007d06116289c19d6b23cf3bf83bd48..e29d8c678e6e51c3f2e5dac53c7703bb18a99ac4 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ ! { dg-do run } -! +! { dg-skip-if "PR libfortran/78314" { aarch64*-*-gnu* arm*-*-gnueabi arm*-*-gnueabihf } } ! Test IEEE_MODES_TYPE, IEEE_GET_MODES and IEEE_SET_MODES Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues. Ok for master? Thanks, Tamar gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/107071 * gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90: skip aarch64, arm.
rb18274.patch
Description: rb18274.patch
