Re: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:00:08 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available
> 
> 2400729ecfd2c7be8b18aeaa822fef5a4b503f8a is the first bad commit
> commit 2400729ecfd2c7be8b18aeaa822fef5a4b503f8a
> Author: Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.com>
> Date:   Wed Nov 22 13:53:43 2017 +0100
>     Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available
> 
> FAIL: gcc-7.3.1-5.fc27.ppc64le
> FAIL: gcc-8.1.1-1.fc28.ppc64le
> 160d1b3d74593bf42155da24569f54a6e7140f65 gdb trunk
> 
> On ppc64le:
> gdb.base/float128.exp
> __float128 large128 = 1.18973149535723176508575932662800702e+4932q;
> (gdb) p large128
> $3 = inf
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/float128.exp: print large128
> 
> But this is a new test by this patch, I guess it needs some ABI options
> gdb.arch/ppc-longdouble.exp is using as that one PASSes on ppc64le in all
> cases.

This shouldn't need any ABI options, since the test case explicitly uses
the __float128 type, which doesn't depend on ABI options (except for
-mfloat128, which the test case does pass).

A result of "inf" instead of the large number is exactly the problem that
is fixed by using MPFR.  So I'm wondering: is the GDB that shows the FAIL
actually built against MPFR?  If at build time MPFR was not detected,
then this failure is exactly what you'd expect ...

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com