From 2a70a4144867aa6ebf1c6bff71ebd46c08196967 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Waterman Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:01:33 -0700 Subject: Add comments explaining why fortran tests fail (#272) --- test/gcc-linux/rv64imafdc-lp64d.log | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) (limited to 'test') diff --git a/test/gcc-linux/rv64imafdc-lp64d.log b/test/gcc-linux/rv64imafdc-lp64d.log index fd438c5..cd4b20b 100644 --- a/test/gcc-linux/rv64imafdc-lp64d.log +++ b/test/gcc-linux/rv64imafdc-lp64d.log @@ -23,18 +23,24 @@ build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 0" 2 build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 2" 1 build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 3" 1 +# ieee_1.F90 is a QEMU bug: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-qemu/issues/64 build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -O0 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -O1 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -O2 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -O3 -g execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_1.F90 -Os execution test +# ieee_8.f90 fails because ieee_support_halting(non-const-expr) correctly +# returns false, but ieee_support_halting(const-expr) incorrectly returns +# true. It looks like a huge pain to fix this, because we'd probably need +# to introduce a new target hook for IEEE 754 exception support. build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -O0 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -O1 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -O2 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -O3 -g execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -Os execution test +# large_3.F90 appears to be the same QEMU bug as ieee_1.F90: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-qemu/issues/64 build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_3.F90 -O0 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_3.F90 -O1 execution test build-gcc-linux-stage2/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum:FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/large_3.F90 -O2 execution test -- cgit v1.1