From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Joseph Myers <josmyers@redhat.com>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] math: Add support for auto static math tests
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:52:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrRXzG4jbqjLrGERyiGJyrJns430yj2f6qu-exc11y2Dg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff2a0335-811a-43a8-a99d-9ec37c807b9c@linaro.org>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto
<adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/03/24 11:25, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:13 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto
> > <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/03/24 10:34, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:46 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto
> >>> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22/03/24 12:51, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>>> * Adhemerval Zanella Netto:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22/03/24 03:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>>>>> * Joseph Myers:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It basically copy the already in place rules for dynamic tests
> >>>>>>>>> for auto-generated math tests for all support types. To avoid
> >>>>>>>>> the need to duplicate .inc files, a .SECONDEXPANSION rules is
> >>>>>>>>> adeed for the gen-libm-test.py generation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Running the autogenerated tests seems overly complicated when the goal is
> >>>>>>>> simply to verify that linking a call succeeds.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right. And I would prefer if we could mark compat/otherwise non-static
> >>>>>>> symbols in the ABI lists and use those for testing static linking.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That was my first approach, but then as an experiment I enabled static
> >>>>>> build for most of math tests and unexpectedly it has shows some failures
> >>>>>> on x86_64:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-float64x-acos
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-float64x-log10
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-float64x-log2
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-float64x-y0
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-float64x-y1
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-ldouble-acos
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-ldouble-log10
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-ldouble-log2
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-ldouble-y0
> >>>>>> FAIL: math/test-ldouble-y1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> $ cat math/test-float64x-acos.out
> >>>>>> testing _Float64x (without inline functions)
> >>>>>> Failure: acos (max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos (-max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_downward (max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_downward (-max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_towardzero (max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_towardzero (-max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_upward (max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>> Failure: acos_upward (-max_value): Exception "Overflow" set
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> This new static test only checks link failure. It doesn't check if the static
> >>> implementation is correct. We may not have more functional coverage
> >>> for static libm in the first static libm test patch. But the first new static
> >>> libm tests should least expose one static libm failure on x86-64.
> >>
> >> The first patch is just a framework so we can selective add new static
> >> tests, I haven't hook all of the autogenerated tests because this would
> >> add more cpu and disk usage.
> >>
> >> And the test added on libm-test-funcs-*-static rules does check for
> >> the implementation, using the default math skeleton test (including
> >> ulp, rounding, exceptions, etc).
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>> My plan was to eventually track down what might be happening here, and
> >>>>>> the currently autogenerated tests gave me a nice scaffolding to add coverage
> >>>>>> tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Interesting. On the other hand, getting --disable-shared to work and
> >>>>> just run the *entire* test suite could provide value, too. The last
> >>>>> time we discussed this we weren't sure if we had static-specific
> >>>>> failures, but your example shows that we do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The main problem imho is --disable-shared is essentially a maintainer
> >>>> option. Although some installed programs will be static linked, it is
> >>>> really useful on checking if static linking is really working as expected.
> >>>>
> >>>> And it also requires *another* build and check iteration, which duplicates
> >>>> the work required in most cases (since static libraries are still built
> >>>> on default for --enable-shared). I tried to help a coworker on support the
> >>>> --disable-shared and I recall another potential issues was the resulting
> >>>> disk usage (and thus build requirements) was quite high due glibc poor
> >>>> organization on static build requirements.
> >>>>
> >>>> There also another complication where we will need to constantly add
> >>>> $(build-shared) and duplicate the CI work to ensure both configure
> >>>> builds are ok.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I really think we should phase-out --disable-shared and work towards
> >>>> on add more static build tests.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. We should add one static libm functional test to each libm
> >>> functional test. With this, the static libm link tests won't be needed.
> >>
> >> For this patchset only added the required one to check for symbols that
> >> there were some regression with recent fixes. But it should be doable to
> >> hook all tests for all symbols, although it would require some more Makefile
> >> rules to hook the tgmath ones.
> >
> > The first patch should just add the functional tests for the missing static
> > libm functions with Makefile changes which can be extended to cover
> > other libm functions.
> >
>
> And it does on second patch exactly as you suggested:
>
> diff --git a/math/Makefile b/math/Makefile
> index aef9cec1a1..fbb2987248 100644
> --- a/math/Makefile
> +++ b/math/Makefile
> @@ -368,7 +368,9 @@ $(libm-test-c-narrow-obj): $(objpfx)libm-test%.c: libm-test%.inc \
>
>
> libm-test-funcs-auto-static =
> -libm-test-funcs-noauto-static =
> +libm-test-funcs-noauto-static = \
> + fmod \
> + # libm-test-funcs-noauto-static
> libm-test-funcs-compat-static =
> libm-test-funcs-narrow-static =
> libm-test-funcs-all-static = $(libm-test-funcs-auto-static) $(libm-test-funcs-noauto-static)
>
>
> If you check the build directory, it will have a test-<type>-fmod-static
> that would fail to build without the rest of the patch.
>
We already generate libm tests under math:
math/cabs.c
math/cabsf128.c
math/cabsf.c
math/cabsl.c
...
Can we also generate
math/cabs-static.c
...
and add them to libm tests?
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-25 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-21 16:43 [PATCH v2 0/6] Math static build fixes Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] math: Add support for auto static math tests Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 23:35 ` Joseph Myers
2024-03-22 6:46 ` Florian Weimer
2024-03-22 14:14 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-22 15:51 ` Florian Weimer
2024-03-22 17:46 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-25 13:34 ` H.J. Lu
2024-03-25 14:13 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-25 14:25 ` H.J. Lu
2024-03-25 14:29 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-25 14:52 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2024-03-25 17:41 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-26 13:40 ` H.J. Lu
2024-03-26 17:37 ` Joseph Myers
2024-03-26 17:55 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2024-03-26 17:59 ` H.J. Lu
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] math: Fix i386 and m68k fmod/fmodf on static build (BZ 31488) Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] i386: Use generic fmod Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] i386: Use generic fmodf Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] math: Fix i386 and m68k exp10 on static build Adhemerval Zanella
2024-03-21 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] i386: Use generic exp10 Adhemerval Zanella
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMe9rOrRXzG4jbqjLrGERyiGJyrJns430yj2f6qu-exc11y2Dg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=josmyers@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).