Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 18:30, Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 17:37:54 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 13:27, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > The following changes since commit >> > > 4b9f0b0f7c84eea2dfb0d5be3e0254bc91319dbc: >> > > >> > > Merge remote-tracking branch >> > > 'remotes/stefanha/tags/block-pull-request' into staging (2019-01-15 >> > > 17:24:00 +0000) >> > > >> > > are available in the Git repository at: >> > > >> > > https://github.com/stsquad/qemu.git tags/pull-fpu-next-170119-1 >> (snip) >> > >> > FreeBSD, OSX, x86-64 Linux clang builds: >> (snip) >> > PPC64, AArch64: >> (snip) >> > NetBSD: >> (snip) >> >> I have added a few commits to fix these -- diff below. >> Note that one fix requires a small change in the testfloat >> submodule, which I'm pulling here. >> >> Alex, can you cherry-pick the commits in this branch? >> >> https://github.com/cota/qemu/tree/bennee-pull >> >> They should go in before adding fp-test to the automated build, >> of course. I left them at the top to make it easier for >> you to cherry-pick. >> >> Also, since this will require a respin, you might want to fix the >> "Makfile" typo in patch 7's title. >> >> > S390X host: >> > Looks like a failure running the tests, but no diagnostics about >> > what exactly went wrong or clear "test failed" indicator: >> > >> > cd /home/linux1/qemu/build/all/tests/fp && ./fp-test -s -l 1 >> > i32_to_f16 i64_to_f16 i32_to_f32 i64_t >> > o_f32 i32_to_f64 i64_to_f64 i32_to_f128 i64_to_f128 > >> > int-to-float.out 2> int-to-float.err >> > /home/linux1/qemu/tests/Makefile.include:913: recipe for target >> > 'check-softfloat-conv' failed >> > make: *** [check-softfloat-conv] Error 1 >> >> What are the contents of "int-to-float.err"? > <snip> >>> Testing i32_to_f128 > 372 tests total. > 21 tests performed; 20 errors found. It's probably not a regression but a failure in the old f128 code. When I was enabling the tests I basically turned them all on and then disabled what failed (all of which was exercising non-refactored code). But of course this was all on x86_64 (although I also ran them on a aarch64 host). It looks like more errors come out on a s390x host for some reason. You can run manually for a more complete test with more coverage: ./fp-test -l 2 -r all i32_to_f128 > > >> diff --git a/tests/fp/Makefile b/tests/fp/Makefile >> index 5019dcdca0..5a35e7c210 100644 >> --- a/tests/fp/Makefile >> +++ b/tests/fp/Makefile >> @@ -65,8 +65,7 @@ QEMU_CFLAGS += $(TF_OPTS) >> TF_CFLAGS := >> TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-strict-prototypes >> TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-unknown-pragmas >> -TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-discarded-qualifiers >> -TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-maybe-uninitialized >> +TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-uninitialized >> TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-prototypes >> TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-return-type >> TF_CFLAGS += -Wno-unused-function > > configure has logic to check whether it can use particular > warning enable/disable flags. Newer gcc (and I hope clang > but forget) will happily silently allow -Wno-random-new-thing > even if they don't support -Wrandom-new-thing) but I'm not > sure our minimum compiler version is yet new enough to > be able to rely on that (indeed the warning messages suggest > it is not). > >> diff --git a/tests/fp/berkeley-testfloat-3 b/tests/fp/berkeley-testfloat-3 >> index ca9fa2ba05..5a59dcec19 160000 >> --- a/tests/fp/berkeley-testfloat-3 >> +++ b/tests/fp/berkeley-testfloat-3 >> @@ -1 +1 @@ >> -Subproject commit ca9fa2ba05625ba929958f163b01747e07dd39cc >> +Subproject commit 5a59dcec19327396a011a17fd924aed4fec416b3 >> diff --git a/tests/fp/fp-test.c b/tests/fp/fp-test.c >> index fca576309c..2a35ef601d 100644 >> --- a/tests/fp/fp-test.c >> +++ b/tests/fp/fp-test.c >> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ static int set_init_flags(const char *flags) >> return 0; >> } >> >> -static uint8_t slow_clear_flags(void) >> +static uint_fast8_t slow_clear_flags(void) >> { >> uint8_t prev = slowfloat_exceptionFlags; >> >> @@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ static uint8_t slow_clear_flags(void) >> return prev; >> } >> >> -static uint8_t qemu_clear_flags(void) >> +static uint_fast8_t qemu_clear_flags(void) >> { >> uint8_t prev = qemu_flags_to_sf(qsf.float_exception_flags); > > Why are we using uint_fast8_t here anyway? We switched > softfloat to using plain old uint8_t everywhere a while > back. > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée
