[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #26 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-15 13:21 --- I have open pr42378 for the remaining failures in comment #21 (I did not include libffi.call/nested_struct5.c that is pr34311). Closing this PR as fixed, please reopen if you disagree. -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #25 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-05 12:54 --- If there is no objection, I'll close tomorrow this pr as fixed. The failure of libffi.call/nested_struct5.c is pr34311 (Opened: 2007-12-01) and I'll open a new pr for the failures of libffi.call/cls_*double_va.c. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-04 08:25 --- At revision 154970, there are still 16 failures, but the error has changed for libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c: ... FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: 36 ... Looking at the log file, I see: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: 36 res: 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7: 35 res: 35 PASS: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O2 execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O2 output pattern test, is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: 36 res: 361 2 3 4 5 6 7 7: 35res: 35 , should match 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: 36^M? res: 36^M? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8: 36^M? res: 36 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-04 16:27 --- At revision 154983, I get === libffi tests === Running target unix FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/nested_struct5.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -Os output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -Os output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test, is -0.0 === libffi Summary === # of expected passes1597 # of unexpected failures11 # of expected failures 10 # of unsupported tests 15 So it seems that all the problems due to revision 154855 are now fixed. Thanks for the patches. BTW did you get an idea about where to look for the remaining 11 failures? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #22 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-12-04 18:13 --- Have you tried r154983 with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00255.html? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-04 18:34 --- Have you tried r154983 with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00255.html? Not yet! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-04 21:00 --- Have you tried r154983 with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00255.html? The patch does not change anything, I get the same failures with or without it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #9 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 13:46 --- Bootstrap is fixed, but mysterious libffi failures remain. -- dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Component|bootstrap |libffi Resolution|FIXED | Summary|[4.5 Regression] powerpc- |[4.5 Regression] powerpc- |apple-darwin9 bootstrap |apple-darwin9 libffi |broken at ffi_darwin.c |failures http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #10 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 13:56 --- The only unique change was in ffitarget.h: #elif defined (POWERPC_DARWIN) defined (__ppc64__) /* Darwin */ #define POWERPC64 Does Darwin define __ppc64__ in 32 bit mode on 64 bit systems? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-03 14:12 --- Does Darwin define __ppc64__ in 32 bit mode on 64 bit systems? I cannot answer the question, but I see gcc/config/rs6000/darwin.h: if (TARGET_64BIT) builtin_define (__ppc64__);\ Assuming powerpc-apple-darwin9 is a 32 bit target, __ppc64__ should not be defined (?). -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howarth at bromo dot med dot ||uc dot edu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #12 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-12-03 15:17 --- On powerpc-apple-darwin9 using a dual G5, for Apple's gcc 4.0 and 4.2 compilers as well as FSF gcc 4.4.2's, one gets... howarth% gcc -m32 -E -dM -x c /dev/null | grep LP64 howarth% only at -m64 do all of the compilers define LP64... howarth% gcc -m64 -E -dM -x c /dev/null | grep LP64 #define __LP64__ 1 #define _LP64 1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #13 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 15:20 --- One would assume ... I do not see any differences that should cause the 11 FPR return value tests to fail on Darwin but not AIX. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #14 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-12-03 15:20 --- Same is true for __ppc64__. For the Apple gcc-4.0 and 4.2 compilers as well as FSF gcc-4.4.2, __ppc64__ is only defined at -m64 and not -m32 as would be expected. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #15 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 16:32 --- One would not expect __ppc64__ to be defined for -m32. Thanks for the confirmation. I do not have access to a darwin system. Do either of you have enough PPC assembly knowledge to step through libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/return_fl1.c in a debugger? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #16 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 17:42 --- I found a system and backported the libffi changes. For some reason, Darwin is calculating the stack location of FP arguments wrong. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #17 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-12-03 18:02 --- Can you verify that powerpc darwin calculates the stack location of FP arguments correctly before your patch to see if it was a latent problem? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #18 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 19:09 --- Subject: Bug 42243 Author: dje Date: Thu Dec 3 19:09:29 2009 New Revision: 154956 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154956 Log: PR libffi/42243 * src/powerpc/ffi_darwin.c (ffi_prep_args): Remove extra parentheses. Modified: trunk/libffi/ChangeLog trunk/libffi/src/powerpc/ffi_darwin.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
[Bug libffi/42243] [4.5 Regression] powerpc-apple-darwin9 libffi failures
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-03 20:57 --- At revision 154956 the results are: === libffi tests === Running target unix FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/nested_struct5.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O2 execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O3 execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O3 output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -Os output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -Os execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -Os output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test, is -0.0 FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer output pattern test, is -0.0 === libffi Summary === # of expected passes1587 # of unexpected failures16 # of expected failures 10 # of unsupported tests 15 So the libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c test is still failing while it was not before revision 154855. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42243
