-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Current master test failures #1
Comments
Thanks for helping here and providing test logs. I'll ask our Gentoo guy, if he could produce results for other versions of the glibc for comparison, so we can get a better picture of where we stand. For the record, the above result is for glibc @28bf4783d9dfe6174de0fc90681da444a028e2a3 with ia64 patches (6150fa3, 08eb8d5) on top. |
Just for clarity, this runs in a chroot, so you can run the test script specified above on any distro. The results from last in-tree version (2.38):
No longer failing:
New failures:
|
@matoro : Thanks for the clarification and the comparison values and sorry for the low participation ATM, but I'm currently trying to bring OpenBSD/sgi forward a little by finally compiling the base system and release files for version 7.3. Unfortunately I was struck with hardware issues on my build machine and some "incompatible" software changes slowing the process down considerably. We also have a patch available that is based on an earlier patch from Aurelien Jarno that @lenticularis39 extended somewhat before glibc dropped ia64 and that brought the number of failures down by nearly 15 % but also increased the number of passes considerably (on Debian (right side) it looked even better):
|
Linux pinacolada 6.6.32-gentoo #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Jun 9 14:18:17 CEST 2024 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux 32bit build for multilib environment Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
@matoro : I now added two new *-epic branches that include the partial math FPU error fix mentioned in #1 (comment) on top: |
Thanks, results from master:
Anything in particular you want to see? Do you want to create a separate bug for each distinct remaining issue? |
@matoro :
No, I think that would be too much (work and effort) for now. I'm afraid we will alreay have enough work at hand to keep it maintained and in a working state until near the end of the year. To help us with that I'm in the process of setting up automatic cross-builds for glibc, binutils and gcc snapshots to get notified of build problems early on. And it looks like I'm not too early with that, as something must have broken after 3953b5b, because with https://snapshots.sourceware.org/glibc/trunk/2024-06-21_14-20_1718979601/src/glibc-2.39.9000-359-g5aa2f79691.tar.xz the build for ia64 is broken. I'll create a separate issue (#2) for that with all information I could find so far later the day. |
Linux catbus 5.15.110-gentoo-r1 #1 SMP Fri Jun 9 17:53:23 PDT 2023 sparc64 sun4v UltraSparc T5 (Niagara5) GNU/Linux Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
This hasn't been looked at for a loong time (already guessing from the number of missing entries), and it ain't pretty. There are some 9-ulps results for float. - ZaZaZebra (qemu-system-m68k clone of PowerBook 190 system) - GCC 13.3.1 20240614 (Gentoo 13.3.1_p20240614 p17) - ld GNU ld (Gentoo 2.42 p6) 2.42.0 - Linux ZaZaZebra 4.19.0-5-m68k #1 Gentoo 4.19.37-5 (2019-06-19) m68k 68040 68040 GNU/Linux - manual build - ../glibc/configure --enable-fortify-source --prefix=/usr - Tested by Immolo (via Andreas K. Hüttel) Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Linux alphadev 6.9.8-gentoo-alpha #1 Sun Jul 7 00:45:49 EDT 2024 alpha EV68CB Titan GNU/Linux gcc (Gentoo 14.1.1_p20240622 p2) 14.1.1 20240622 GNU ld (Gentoo 2.42 p6) 2.42.0 Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
I tried to build
Repro with:
|
@matoro : Thanks for reporting. Strange, 2.40 built fine cross, see https://github.com/johnny-mnemonic/toolchain-autobuilds/actions/runs/10031301500/job/27721605313#step:4:118, unless that does not cover everything. But the logs show that Just to know what |
@matoro : Yeah, looks like the cross-builds don't cover that, as the log has no mentions of |
@matoro : If you still have the source, could you please post the source code in that created test "test-double-log1p.c"? I wonder if it makes use of those arch specific "-ulps" files. Because for ia64 there are no definitions for those new C23 functions and this seems to be the only difference to other arches so far. E.g. for alpha the logp1 relevant part of that file (
|
Looks like this is all that's in it:
|
Just to avoid back-and-forth, here's a copy of the entire source and results: https://synapse.matoro.tk/_matrix/media/v3/download/synapse.matoro.tk/JtYhxqdIfbeEbNsTOuswivbR?allow_redirect=true |
@matoro : Thanks for providing the tarball, I could now verify that the test executables for:
...are built and linked successfully. So it's not a general issue, but specific for "logp1". Also specific for this is that for all the other tests of the new C23 functions there exist function implementations for all supported data types. But for "logp1" there only exists the test implementation:
No wonder it can't find the "logp1" symbol. |
It must be related to the way it is implemented:
...(from bb014f5). Well, at least a hint. |
@johnny-mnemonic If we are just missing an implementation for |
@lenticularis39 : ia64 has its own versions of "log1p":
And "logp1" should just be an alias for that IIUC (see #1 (comment)). I think the problem lies in the way this is implemented. Joseph Meyers wrote later (in bb014f5) that as there are vector versions of "log1p" for arm64 and x86_64 those needed to be handled differently:
We need to compare the changes for arm64 and x86_64 with other arches to find the differences. |
...also looking for
|
I htink bb014f5#diff-15bedff5ca9338cd36d5cac117fc32513aa32df0176bb700bad121e9c5e48b52R1149 does not detect correctly that ia64 has multiple versions for "log1p" as in "matching more than one ALL_RM_TEST line in a file testing multiple functions with the same inputs, when it assumes that the .inc file only has a single such line". |
Linux dola 5.15.169-gentoo-dist #1 SMP Wed Oct 23 06:25:30 -00 2024 aarch64 GNU/Linux Vendor ID: ARM Model name: Neoverse-N1 gcc (Gentoo Hardened 13.3.1_p20241025 p1) 13.3.1 20241024 Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Linux catbus 6.1.112 #1 SMP Sun Oct 13 10:52:08 PDT 2024 sparc64 sun4v UltraSparc T5 (Niagara5) GNU/Linux gcc (Gentoo 13.3.1_p20240614 p17) 13.3.1 20240614 Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
I saw a request to help test this, so I ran the test suite using Gentoo packaging. You can reproduce this on real hardware with:
These are run on kernel 6.6.32. Here are the results:
Here's a tarball with the complete build and detailed test logs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: