From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!8nKyDL3nVTTIdBB8axZhRA.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GCC updated in NetBSD!
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:16:36 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <lyk0i51i0r.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <sknedo$tm1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <lyzgr3h0t2.fsf@pushface.org>
	<skqvsl$ea7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <lyr1cehk14.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="23902"; posting-host="8nKyDL3nVTTIdBB8axZhRA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (darwin)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7vbJ0IhJUKIv9Jm7RKK0JAxLhB8=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:63052
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
>> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
>> news:lyzgr3h0t2.fsf@pushface.org...
>> ...
>>> *** FAILURES: c250002 c324006 c35503d c35503f c415001 c611a04 cxaib05
>>> cxaib08 cxd1003 cxd1004 cxd1005 cxd2006 cxd3001 cxd3002
>>>
>> ...
>>> C35503D GCC 11 supports 128-bit integers
>>> C35503F likewise
>>
>> These two are "macro" tests, such that one is supposed to modify the
>> values in the Macro.Dfs file and regenerate these tests with the
>> correct values. If the compiler supports 128-bit integers, then those
>> values would be different (and a lot longer) than the values for
>> 64-bit integers. They could of course fail for some other reason, but
>> getting those values wrong in the original substitution is bad.
>
> Yes; what happens in the GCC version is that MACRO.DFS gets regenerated
> from a template version during setup.
>
> I missed a change made 14 months ago, i.e. in preparaton for GCC 11, in
> which (for 64-bit targets) the expected max/min_int are set to 128-bit
> values.

Now fixed (for GCC 11+), tag acats-4.1x.

GCC 10 doesn't support 128-bit integers; not sure how to retain
compatibility and also abide by the spirit of the GCC version of ACATS.
I see that GCC introduced a support program Impbit, which reports the
compiler's System.Address'Size'Img; a program Imp_Max_Int which reports
the compiler's System.Max_Int, and using the result to check
System.Max_Int, seems a tad incestuous.

Fernando, you're using GCC 10? I've tagged the previous release with
acats-4.1w.