[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest
From: |
Paulo Marques |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:14:25 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.2) |
Quoting Andrew Hutchinson <address@hidden>:
Here are my test results using Paulo simulator.
Seems I have more tests!
I'm now running from SVN, so I'm always testing the latest version,
although my initial report was for gcc 4.2.2.
One thing I noticed is that almost everyday there is a new test added
to the testsuite. So, if we're running a svn version from a month ago,
many tests may have entered, or may have been marked as unsuported in
the meantime.
I may have less failures as I did fix a bug I found while sorting out
test patterns. The rest look the same as Paulo found.
Ok, to try to synchronize with you, so that our tests are consistent,
I'm running a test against svn revision 131704 (from today).
Changes I've made so far to solve some of the failures:
- created a sys/types.h with:
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdint.h>
- changed ldflags definition in atmega128-sim.exp to:
set_board_info ldflags "/home/pmarques/dejagnuboards/exit.c
-Wl,-u,vfprintf -lprintf_flt
-Wl,-Tbss=0x802000,--defsym=__heap_end=0x80ffff"
the "-Wl,-Tbss=0x802000,--defsym=__heap_end=0x80ffff" part points
the bss to external RAM, so that we have 4kb of just data + stack and
56k of BSS. This allows some of the tests that need a little more
memory to run.
- changed the stack size definition to half the internal RAM:
set_board_info gcc,stack_size 2048
- already applied this patch to gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/pr23484-chk.c:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/pr23484-chk.c
(revision 131704)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/pr23484-chk.c (working copy)
@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@
abort ();
memset (buf, 'L', sizeof (buf));
- if (snprintf (buf, l1 ? sizeof (buf) : 4, "%d", l1 + 65536) != 5
- || memcmp (buf, "655\0LLLL", 8))
+ if (snprintf (buf, l1 ? sizeof (buf) : 4, "%d", l1 + 32760) != 5
+ || memcmp (buf, "327\0LLLL", 8))
abort ();
if (chk_calls)
The result of running 'make -k check
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=atmega128-sim --all execute.exp"' under
these conditions is:
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 11799
# of unexpected failures 52
# of unresolved testcases 23
# of unsupported tests 682
/home/pmarques/Desktop/gcc-4.2.2/svn/obj/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0
20080119 (experimental) (GCC)
The tests that fail for me are:
20010122-1.c execution, -O0
20010122-1.c execution, -O1
20010122-1.c execution, -O2
20010122-1.c execution, -O3 -g
20010122-1.c execution, -Os
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O2
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O3 -g
built-in-setjmp.c execution, -Os
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O0
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O1
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O2
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -O3 -g
builtin-bitops-1.c compilation, -Os
ffs-1.c compilation, -O0
ffs-1.c compilation, -O1
ffs-1.c compilation, -O2
ffs-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
ffs-1.c compilation, -O3 -g
ffs-1.c compilation, -Os
ffs-2.c compilation, -O0
ffs-2.c compilation, -O1
ffs-2.c compilation, -O2
ffs-2.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
ffs-2.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
ffs-2.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions
ffs-2.c compilation, -O3 -g
ffs-2.c compilation, -Os
float-floor.c execution, -O0
float-floor.c execution, -O1
float-floor.c execution, -O2
float-floor.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
float-floor.c execution, -O3 -g
float-floor.c execution, -Os
multi-ix.c compilation, -O0
pr17377.c execution, -O0
pr17377.c execution, -O1
pr17377.c execution, -O2
pr17377.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
pr17377.c execution, -O3 -g
pr17377.c execution, -Os
pr22493-1.c execution, -O1
pr22493-1.c execution, -O2
pr22493-1.c execution, -Os
pr27364.c execution, -O1
pr27364.c execution, -O2
pr27364.c execution, -Os
Unresolved are all missing float function - or mmix? where data is to
large (causes 8 unresolved)
If you mean the missing __clzhi2, __ctzhi2, etc., these are bit
operations that are missing from libgcc. Some of them might be used by
the floating point emulation, though.
Importantly, I looks like my other compiler patches work too!
Great :)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 11663
# of unexpected failures 59
# of unresolved testcases 30
# of unsupported tests 676
These numbers do look familiar, so there aren't probably much
differences between our results.
I've reported the fail with test pr27364.c. Here's the bug report:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34916
Please append your reduced test case there. Your test case is a really
scary one, I must say.
--
Paulo Marques
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
- Delta [was: RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest], (continued)
- Delta [was: RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest], Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Paulo Marques, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Andrew Hutchinson, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Paulo Marques, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Andrew Hutchinson, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Paulo Marques, 2008/01/22
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Andrew Hutchinson, 2008/01/22
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/23
RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Wouter van Gulik, 2008/01/20
Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Andrew Hutchinson, 2008/01/21
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest,
Paulo Marques <=
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Paulo Marques, 2008/01/21
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/21
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Andrew Hutchinson, 2008/01/21
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/21
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] More results from the testsuite with avrtest, Paulo Marques, 2008/01/21