EABI arm linux gcc 4.1.1 test result

[Steven Newbury]

--- Bridge Wu <mingqiao.wu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I built arm-iwmmxt-linux-gnueabi-gcc 4.1.1 with glibc-2.4 and ran gcc
> testsuite-4.1.1. I got some unexpected FAIL results. Below are some
> results and questions.
> 
> Results:
> 
> arm-iwmmxt-linux-gnueabi-gcc
> # of expected passes            36767
> # of unexpected failures        60
> # of unexpected successes    2
> # of expected failures           75
> # of unresolved testcases      77
> # of untested testcases         28
> # of unsupported tests          384
> 
> arm-iwmmxt-linux-gnueabi-g++
> # of expected passes            11773
> # of unexpected failures        21
> # of unexpected successes     3
> # of expected failures            66
> # of unresolved testcases      23
> # of unsupported tests          131
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. gcc.c-torture/execute/20050316-1.c
>    This test case is for testing the issue at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16104.  If we compile it
> with -O1 or -O2 option, there will be execution FAIL. The result is
> similar with 20050316-2.c and 20050316-3.c
> 
> 2. gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c
>    This test case is for testing the issue at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21897
> . There are seven FAIL cases.
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O1
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O2
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -O3 –g
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c execution,  -Os
> 
> The code snippet from 20050604-1.c is shown below. u.v is not computed
> with v4hi variables. So abort() is triggered. This only occurred with
> above optimization options.
> 
> typedef short v4hi __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
> union
> {
>   v4hi v;
>   short s[4];
> } u;
> void
> foo (void)
> {
>   unsigned int i;
>   for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
>     u.v += (v4hi) { 12, 14 };
> }
> 
> int
> main (void)
> {
>   foo ();
>   if (u.s[0] != 24 || u.s[1] != 28 || u.s[2] || u.s[3])
>     abort ();
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> 3. gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c
>    There are three FAIL cases.
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c execution,  -O1
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c execution,  -O2
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c execution,  -Os
> 
> 4. g++.dg/opt/switch4.C
>    This test case is for testing the issue at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20008. There were
> compilation errors shown as below.
> 
> arm-iwmmxt-linux-gnueabi-g++ ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C
> -fmessage-length=0   -ansi -pedantic-errors -Wno-long-long  -S -o
> switch4.s
> ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C: In function 'void f(SECStatus)':
> ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C:24: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion
> ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C:24: warning: case label value exceeds maximum
> value for type
> ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C:28: error: expected primary-expression before 'break'
> ./g++.dg/opt/switch4.C:28: error: expected `;' before 'break'
> 
> 
> According to the bugzilla system, these issues should be solved in
> gcc-4.1.1. I wonder if I used inproper configuration to build the tool
> chain. For the issue 1,2 and 3, it was related to some vector variable
> operations. Issue 4 is totally incomprehensibility to me. Does anybody
> know the possible reason? How to solve these issues?

Hi Bridge.
I suspect it just hasn't been tested and the bug fixes missed the iWMMXt case. 
I haven't run the test suite, I should have done really...  

Steve


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/fifaworldcup_uk/

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq