linaro-toolchain April 2025

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

4 participants
3 discussions

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #109371: 5 regressions on aarch64

by Martin Simmons

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:58:18 +0000 (UTC), ci notify said: > ... > In gdb_check master-aarch64, after: > | gdb patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/109371 > ... > Used configuration : > *CI config* tcwg_gdb_check master-aarch64 > *configure and test flags:* none, autodetected on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu > > If you have any questions regarding this report, please ask on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list. > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > > The information below contains the details of the failures, and the ways to reproduce a debug environment: > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/art… > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/art… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/art… > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/art… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-build/2461/artifac… In https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/art… it appears that the "info set" test started at line 1159 and failed with FAIL: gdb.base/default.exp: info set (timeout) at line 1533. Then a few more tests failed with timeout and finally over 100 tests failed with no obvious reason. Was this caused by a problem on the CI machine?

8 hours, 4 minutes

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.41.9000-229-g7f163bd2106: 1 regressions on arm

by ci_notify＠linaro.org

Dear contributor, Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. In master-arm, after: | commit glibc-2.41.9000-229-g7f163bd2106 | Author: Joseph Myers <josmyers(a)redhat.com> | Date: Tue Apr 1 12:44:26 2025 +0000 | | Update syscall lists for Linux 6.14 | | Linux 6.14 has no new syscalls. Update the version number in | syscall-names.list to reflect that it is still current for 6.14. | | ... 1 lines of the commit log omitted. Produces 1 regressions: | | regressions.sum: | Running glibc:misc ... | FAIL: misc/tst-glibcsyscalls Used configuration : *CI config* tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc master-arm *configure and test flags:* none, autodetected on armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf We track this bug report under https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1557. Please let us know if you have a fix. If you have any questions regarding this report, please ask on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list. -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below contains the details of the failures, and the ways to reproduce a debug environment: You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/112… The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/112… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/112… Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/112… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/111… Instruction to reproduce the build : https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=7f163bd2106f96e2925e…

11 hours, 53 minutes

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR85836: Implement the F2018 reduce intrinsic

by Christophe Lyon

Hi! On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 19:22, Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andre, > > Thanks for the review - I'll act on the points that you raised. > > The Linaro people reported a failure in reduce_1.f90 execution, which I believe is due to incorrect casting of 'dim' and a wrong specification of its kind. I am waiting to hear back from them as to whether or not I have fixed the failure. > Sorry I notice this message just today, so it's a bit outdated... I've looked at bugzilla, so I've noticed that the are proper bug reports about this now (and I've just checked, the problem is still present on arm). When you say you are "waiting to hear back from them as to whether or not I have fixed the failure", did you contact us directly? (I'm trying to understand if we missed your message, or how we could improve communication). Thanks, Christophe > Cheers > > Paul > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 12:39, Andre Vehreschild <vehre(a)gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> I took a look at your patch and think I found some improvements needed. In >> >> +bool >> +gfc_check_reduce (gfc_expr *array, gfc_expr *operation, gfc_expr *dim, >> + gfc_expr *mask, gfc_expr *identity, gfc_expr *ordered) >> +{ >> >> ... >> >> + if (formal->sym->attr.allocatable || formal->sym->attr.allocatable >> + || formal->sym->attr.pointer || formal->sym->attr.pointer >> + || formal->sym->attr.optional || formal->sym->attr.optional >> + || formal->sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS || formal->sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS) >> + { >> + gfc_error ("Each argument of OPERATION at %L shall be a scalar, " >> + "non-allocatable, non-pointer, non-polymorphic and " >> + "nonoptional", &operation->where); >> + return false; >> + } >> >> The if is only looking at the first formal argument. The right-hand sides >> of the || miss a ->next-> to look at the second formal argument, right? >> >> May be you also want to extend the tests!? >> >> Without having looked at it, but can't you extract the whole block of >> >> + if (array->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER) >> + { >> + unsigned long actual_size, formal_size1, formal_size2, result_size; >> ... >> + return false; >> + } >> + } >> >> and share it with the checks for co_reduce? I figure way to many DRY principle >> violations are in gfortran. So when we can start this, why not do it? And a >> call to a routine, like check_char_arg_conformance() speaks way better, then >> having to read all that code ;-) >> >> In gfc_resolve_reduce() identity and ordered are marked as UNUSED. Should these >> not a least be resolved? >> >> Please run contrib/check_GNU_style on your patch. It reports several issues >> (haven't look into their validity). >> >> In the Changelog: >> >> - (gfc_check_rename): Add prototype for intrinsic with 6 arguments. >> + * gfortran.h: Add prototype for intrinsic with 6 arguments. >> >> s/discription/description/ >> >> I also encountered that nit with the executable stack when working in >> OpenCoarrays, but haven't had time (or desire) to look into it. I will put >> myself into CC of the pr Jerry mentioned. >> >> Besides the mentions above, this looks good to me. >> >> Thanks for the patch and >> >> Regards, >> Andre >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:26:55 +0000 >> Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > This version of the REDUCE intrinsic patch has evolved somewhat since the >> > posting on 2nd March. The most important changes are to the wrapper >> > function and the addition of two testsuite entries. >> > >> > The wrapper function now effects: >> > subroutine wrapper (a, b, c) >> > type_of_ARRAY, intent(inout) :: a, c >> > type_of_ARRAY, intent(inout), optional :: b >> > if (present (b)) then >> > c = OPERATION (a,b ) >> > else >> > c = a >> > end if >> > end subroutine >> > >> > The reason for wrapping OPERATION in a subroutine is to allow pointer >> > arithmetic to be used throughout in the library function. The only thing >> > that needs to be known about the type and kind of ARRAY is the element >> > size. The second branch in the wrapper allows deep copies to be done in the >> > library function, such that derived types with allocatable components do >> > not leak memory. This is needed at the final step of the algorithm to copy >> > the result from each iteration to the result and then nullify it. >> > >> > This is undoubtedly a bit heavy going for intrinsic types and so, one day >> > soon I will possibly do a bit of M4ery. That said, the present version >> > works for all types of ARRAY and I worry a bit about how much this >> > intrinsic will be used. Thoughts? >> > >> > A slight niggle is the linker error that comes up if compiled without any >> > optimization: >> > /usr/bin/ld: warning: /tmp/cc9cx9Rw.o: requires executable stack (because >> > the .note.GNU-stack section is executable) >> > I think that this is unlikely to present a security issue, however, since >> > it disappears at -O1, I went through each of the options triggered by -O1 >> > but couldn't make it go away. Does anybody know why this is? >> > >> > Regtests OK with FC41/x86_64 - OK for mainline? >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Paul >> >> >> -- >> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de

17 hours, 25 minutes

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain April 2025