[Beignet] Two Failure in Utest

[Sun, Yi]

Exactly, I re-tested these two cases with environment OCL_SIMD_WIDTH=8
separately, and both two failed as expected.

Thanks
  --Sun, Yi

On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 19:53 +0800, Zhigang Gong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 07:17:03AM +0000, Sun, Yi wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After talking a bit with Homer, we found it may be a GT1 only issue.
> > My test machine is GT1 desktop with pciID 0x0152.
> 
> I don't have a GT1 machine in hand. But the reason why the "culprit" commit
> is the test case for double float should be that the double test case will
> force the OCL_SIMD_WIDTH to 8. So all the following test case will run with
> SIMD8, and maybe the two cases should be fail with SIMD8 all the time on
> your machine. Could you set OCL_SIMD_WIDTH to 8 and then run the test cases
> separately?
> 
> To avoid the side effect by the current double implementation which will force
> OCL_SIMD_WIDTH to 8, one easiest way is to move the double related test cases
> to the last of test list. Or is there any better idea?
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> >   --Sun, Yi
> > 
> > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 05:24 +0000, Sun, Yi wrote:
> > > After bisecting, I got the culprit commit as following:
> > > 
> > > db199abf207daad52b34fac600f3388472a9966c is the first bad commit
> > > commit db199abf207daad52b34fac600f3388472a9966c
> > > Author: Homer Hsing <homer.xing at intel.com>
> > > Date:   Fri Jun 21 12:26:32 2013 +0800
> > > 
> > >     test cases for 64-bit float
> > > 
> > >     Signed-off-by: Homer Hsing <homer.xing at intel.com>
> > >     Reviewed-by: Zhigang Gong <zhigang.gong at linux.intel.com>
> > >     Tested-by: Yang Rong <rong.r.yang at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > >   --Sun, Yi
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 02:08 +0000, Sun, Yi wrote:
> > > > Zhigang,
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, I double checked it. I'm using the top commit now.
> > > > And a new finding: if I run the test cases separately both two would be
> > > > passed by command:
> > > > ./utest_run compiler_global_memory_barrier
> > > > ./utest_run compiler_local_memory_barrier_wg64
> > > > 
> > > > But it's a bit strange that if I run all the test cases by
> > > > command ./utest_run without sub-test name, these two failures would turn
> > > > out.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > >   --Sun, Yi
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 09:46 +0800, Zhigang Gong wrote:
> > > > > Yi，
> > > > > 
> > > > > Were you using the latest master branch to do the testing? There should be
> > > > > no failure.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: beignet-bounces+zhigang.gong=linux.intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > [mailto:beignet-bounces+zhigang.gong=linux.intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Sun, Yi
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:08 AM
> > > > > > To: beignet at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > > > Subject: [Beignet] Two Failure in Utest
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi all
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I found two failed cases in utest as following. Are they known ones?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > compiler_global_memory_barrier:
> > > > > >   compiler_global_memory_barrier()    [FAILED]
> > > > > >     Error: dst[i+j] == locals[0] - 1 -j
> > > > > >   at
> > > > > > file /home/works/opencl/beignet/utests/compiler_global_memory_barrier.cpp,
> > > > > > function compiler_global_memory_barrier, line 24
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > compiler_local_memory_barrier_wg64:
> > > > > >   compiler_local_memory_barrier_wg64()    [FAILED]
> > > > > >     Error: dst[i+j] == 63-j
> > > > > >   at
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > /home/works/opencl/beignet/utests/compiler_local_memory_barrier_wg64.cp
> > > > > > p, function compiler_local_memory_barrier_wg64, line 42
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >   --Sun, Yi
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Beignet mailing list
> > > > > > Beignet at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Beignet mailing list
> > > > Beignet at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Beignet mailing list
> > > Beignet at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beignet mailing list
> > Beignet at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet