Re: Results for egcs-2.91.52 19980727 (gcc2 ss-980609 experiment

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O1 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O2 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -finline-functions 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -finline-functions -funroll-loops 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
> -finline-functions -funroll-all-loops 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -O2 -g 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/980619-1.c execution,  -Os 

	These are expected failures and not a bug.  By default, GCC for
AIX runs in common-mode which means the single-precision floating-point
instructions added to PowerPC architecture are not present.  This testcase
specifically tests

	sizeof (float) != 4

but that does not catch that internally GCC is emitting double-precision
floating-point instructions and only restricts the value to
single-prevision when storing to memory.  This test passes if GCC is told
to use the PowerPC architecture (and it does not fail on Linux/PPC which
only uses the PowerPC architecture).

	I would propose marking it XFAIL unless the compiler is targeted
at the PowerPC architecture.  I don't know enough about DejaGNU to create
an appropriate 980619-1.x and testing for the various CFLAGS might be too
complicated.  One also could test for the appropriate _ARCH_PPC macro
definition in the testcase itself at the same point the test for float
size is done.

David