linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

4 participants
5631 discussions

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.40.9000-213-gb300078d97a: FAIL: 4 regressions on aarch64

by ci_notify＠linaro.org

Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1357 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In master-aarch64 after: | commit glibc-2.40.9000-213-gb300078d97a | Author: Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com> | Date: Sat Sep 28 09:44:25 2024 +0200 | | Linux: Block signals around _Fork (bug 32215) | | This hides the inconsistent TCB state (missing robust mutex list) from | signal handlers. | | ... 1 lines of the commit log omitted. FAIL: 4 regressions regressions.sum: | === gdb tests === | | Running gdb:gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp ... | FAIL: gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp: fork: displaced=off: find syscall insn in fork (timeout) | FAIL: gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp: fork: displaced=off: syscall number matches | FAIL: gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp: fork: displaced=on: find syscall insn in fork (timeout) | FAIL: gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp: fork: displaced=on: syscall number matches | | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of the binary differs from the expected one You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gdb--master-aarch64-build/1… 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_gdb--master-aarch64-build/1… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gdb--master-aarch64-build/1… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_gnu_native_check_gdb master-aarch64 -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gdb--master-aarch64-build/1… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gdb--master-aarch64-build/1… 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=b300078d97a6892cb2fa…

11 months, 2 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3899-g819098dc71f2: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements on aarch64

by Sam James

ci_notify(a)linaro.org writes: > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to > your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any > questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite > Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our > CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1356 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In gcc_check master-aarch64 after: > > | commit gcc-15-3899-g819098dc71f2 > | Author: Sam James <sam(a)gentoo.org> > | Date: Thu Sep 26 15:43:33 2024 +0100 > | > | testsuite: XFAIL gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 properly > | > | The test was disabled/XFAIL'd informally in r0-100012-gcdc6637d7c78ec, > | but r15-3890-g34bf6aa41ba539 didn't realize this, causing a FAIL. > | > | ... 7 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements > Thanks, this is PR116858 and I'll handle it today or tomorrow at the latest. > regressions.sum: > | === gfortran tests === > | > | Running gfortran:gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > | FAIL: gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 -O xfail *-*-* (test for errors, line 11) > | > | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of the binary differs from the expected one > > improvements.sum: > | === gfortran tests === > | > | Running gfortran:gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > | FAIL: gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 -O (test for errors, line 11) > | > | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of the binary differs from the expected one > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifac… > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-aarch64 > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2667/artifac… > > Instruction to reproduce the build : > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/819098dc71f2079aedc15a904ab5f17f07…

11 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3607-g9a94c8ffdc8b: FAIL: 23 regressions: 22 improvements on master-thumb_m23_soft_eabi

by Richard Earnshaw (lists)

On 21/09/2024 08:49, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1349 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In arm-eabi cortex-m23 soft after: > > | commit gcc-15-3607-g9a94c8ffdc8b > | Author: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha(a)arm.com> > | Date: Thu Sep 12 14:24:55 2024 +0100 > | > | arm: testsuite: make use of -mcpu=unset/-march=unset > | > | This patch makes use of the new ability to unset the CPU or > | architecture flags on the command line to enable several more tests on > | Arm. It doesn't cover every case and it does enable some tests that > | now fail for different reasons when the tests are no-longer skipped; > | these were failing anyway for other testsuite configurations, so it's > | ... 22 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 23 regressions: 22 improvements > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/scd42-2.c scan-assembler mov[ \t].*272 > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > ... and 19 more entries > > improvements.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > ... and 16 more entries I can't make any sense of this at all. After hours wasted trying to find the configuration information from the logs (it's there, but to the inexperienced user of your reports, it is buried far too deep), I'm still none-the-wiser. All I can see is that things like FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 have changed to FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 (ie that -mcpu=unset has been added to the test name). That's not a regression, it's a simple FAIL->FAIL R. > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e… > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc arm-eabi -mthumb -march=armv8-m.base -mtune=cortex-m23 -mfloat-abi=soft -mfpu=auto > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/9a94c8ffdc8b554a2d95e0101e96830efe… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc > ** master-thumb_m23_soft_eabi > *** FAIL: 23 regressions: 22 improvements > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m23_soft_e…

11 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #97787: Failure on aarch64

by David Malcolm

On Sat, 2024-09-21 at 04:30 +0000, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to > your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any > questions, please follow up on > linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg > channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the > usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs > or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from > our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > In gcc_build master-aarch64 after: > > | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/97787 > | Author: David Malcolm <dmalcolm(a)redhat.com> > | Date: Fri Sep 20 19:05:46 2024 -0400 > | > | diagnostics: convert text hooks to use > diagnostic_text_output_format [PR116613] > | > | The diagnostic_starter and diagnostic_finalizer callbacks and > most of > | their support subroutines are only used by the "text" output > format. > | > | Emphasize this and reduce the binding with diagnostic_context > | by renaming the callbacks to add "_text" in their names, and > converting > | ... 264 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 2484ba167e1c libstdc++: fix C header include guards > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_abe gcc: > # FAILED > # First few build errors in logs: > # 00:06:02 /home/tcwg- > build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/diagnosti > c-format-sarif.cc:3130:8: error: ‘void > sarif_output_format::after_diagnostic(const diagnostic_info&)’ cannot > be overloaded with ‘void sarif_output_format::after_diagnostic(const > diagnostic_info&)’ > # 00:06:03 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1195: diagnostic-format-sarif.o] > Error 1 > # 00:06:03 make[1]: *** [Makefile:4701: all-gcc] Error 2 > # 00:06:03 make: *** [Makefile:1062: all] Error 2 This works for me, and I've been staring at the code and can't see the issue. Any ideas what the problem is? What stage 0 compiler are you using? Thanks Dave

11 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #97698: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements on arm

by Guinevere Larsen

I think some issue has happened in the CI. Both this and 2 patches I've sent to the mailing list (one that changes no code, only the SECURITY.txt file) say that I've introduced regressions, yet the relevant test only has "no file ID for <hex number>". Can you double check what's going on? -- Cheers, Guinevere Larsen She/Her/Hers On 9/23/24 5:18 AM, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | gdb patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/97698 > | Author: Guinevere Larsen <blarsen(a)redhat.com> > | Date: Thu Sep 19 09:42:04 2024 -0300 > | > | gdb/testsuite: rework bp-cond-failure to not depend on inlining > | > | The test gdb.base/bp-cond-failure is implicitly expecting that the > | function foo will be inlined twice and gdb will be able to find 2 > | locations to place a breakpoint. When clang is used, gdb only finds > | one location which causes the test to fail. Since the test is not > | worried about handling breakpoints on inlined functions, but rather on > | ... 11 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | d3acf3d759d Rename tui_suppress_output > > FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.base/return.exp ... > ERROR: no fileid for 5a8f76db3a07 > > > improvements.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.base/return.exp ... > ERROR: no fileid for a55c644d3a50 > > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/3013/artifac… > 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-arm-precommit/3013/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/3013/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_check master-arm > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/3013/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1786/artifact/ar… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

11 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-20-init-6434-ga861ed411a35: Failure on aarch64

by Nathan Chancellor

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 09:39:09AM +0000, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/LLVM-1362 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In CI config tcwg_kernel/llvm-master-aarch64-lts-defconfig after: > > | commit llvmorg-20-init-6434-ga861ed411a35 > | Author: Florian Hahn <flo(a)fhahn.com> > | Date: Fri Sep 20 11:22:03 2024 +0100 > | > | [VPlan] Add initial loop-invariant code motion transform. (#107894) > | > | Add initial transform to move out loop-invariant recipes. > | > | This also helps to fix a divergence between legacy and VPlan-based cost > | model due to legacy using ScalarEvolution::isLoopInvariant in some > | cases. > | ... 4 lines of the commit log omitted. Thanks for the report. I suspect this should be fixed by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/bd8fe9972e3f17776e4e05e69e13ab8…, based on the fact that there is a similar report on the pull request upstream. Cheers, Nathan

11 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3608-gc5009eb88791: FAIL: 4 regressions on arm

by Jason Merrill

On 9/12/24 9:13 PM, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1342 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-15-3608-gc5009eb88791 > | Author: Jason Merrill <jason(a)redhat.com> > | Date: Tue Aug 27 13:15:16 2024 -0400 > | > | libcpp: adjust pedwarn handling > | > | Using cpp_pedwarning (CPP_W_PEDANTIC instead of if (CPP_PEDANTIC cpp_error > | lets users suppress these diagnostics with > | #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wpedantic". > | > | This patch changes all instances of the cpp_error (CPP_DL_PEDWARN to > | ... 44 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 4 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === g++ tests === > > Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... > FAIL: c-c++-common/pragma-diag-17.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: c-c++-common/pragma-diag-17.c -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: c-c++-common/pragma-diag-17.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ... > FAIL: c-c++-common/pragma-diag-17.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors) > ... and 1 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2697/artifact/ar… > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2697/artifact/ar… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2697/artifact/ar… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2697/artifact/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2696/artifact/ar… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/c5009eb887910271ea35a857aa68941c72… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** FAIL: 4 regressions > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2697/artifact/ar… Curious, does this resolve the problems?

11 months, 4 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3617-g4308c343b8e: FAIL: 4 regressions: 4 improvements on arm

by Alexandre Oliva

On Sep 17, 2024, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: > regressions.sum: > FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-8.c -std=c++<XX> expected multiline pattern lines 20-35 > improvements.sum: > FAIL: c-c++-common/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-8.c -std=c++<XX> expected multiline pattern lines 19-34 It's the same set of FAILs, but the line ranges got offset by 1 in the patch, and this seems to have confused your regression tester. Please mark this as all clear. Thanks for the report, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive

11 months, 4 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3572-g2801a49d114: FAIL: 6 regressions on master-thumb_m55_hard_eabi

by Christophe Lyon

Hi, On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 15:24, <ci_notify(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1347 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In arm-eabi cortex-m55 hard after: > > | commit gcc-15-3572-g2801a49d114 > | Author: Marek Polacek <polacek(a)redhat.com> > | Date: Thu Aug 29 15:13:03 2024 -0400 > | > | c++: mutable temps in rodata [PR116369] > | > | Here we wrongly mark the reference temporary for g TREE_READONLY, > | so it's put in .rodata and so we can't modify its subobject even > | when the subobject is marked mutable. This is so since r9-869. > | r14-1785 fixed a similar problem, but not in set_up_extended_ref_temp. > | > | ... 10 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 6 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === g++ tests === > > Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++11 compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++17 compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++26 (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-ssa/initlist-opt7.C -std=c++26 compilation failed to produce executable > The new tests introduced by this patch fail to link due a linker bug which has now been fixed. You can ignore this notification. Thanks, Christophe > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e… > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc arm-eabi -mthumb -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve.fp+fp.dp -mtune=cortex-m55 -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/2801a49d1144bce5568b527d1972952ad3… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc > ** master-thumb_m55_hard_eabi > *** FAIL: 6 regressions > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-thumb_m55_hard_e…

11 months, 4 weeks

Lots of failing tests on arm-unknown-eabi

by Mark Wielaard

Hi, ci_notify(a)linaro.org is sending test results to gcc-restresults(a)gcc.gnu.org but recently starting to fail so many tests that they don't get accepted anymore: From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org on Tue Sep 10 02:17:32 2024 Subject: Results for 15.0.0 20240906 (experimental) [master revision gcc-15-3512-ge8378231bb8] (GCC) testsuite on arm-unknown-eabi Cause: Message body is too big: 6548864 bytes with a limit of 1000 KB From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org on Tue Sep 10 05:28:38 2024 Subject: Results for 15.0.0 20240906 (experimental) [master revision gcc-15-3512-ge8378231bb88] (GCC) testsuite on arm-unknown-eabi Cause: Message body is too big: 6559111 bytes with a limit of 1000 KB From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org on Tue Sep 10 10:55:10 2024 Subject: Results for 15.0.0 20240906 (experimental) [master revision gcc-15-3512-ge8378231bb88] (GCC) testsuite on arm-unknown-eabi Cause: Message body is too big: 6548861 bytes with a limit of 1000 KB So that is 6.5MB of results. Almost all look like: FAIL: 17_intro/freestanding.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: 17_intro/freestanding.cc -std=gnu++17 compilation failed to produce executable Could someone take a look? It seems that the compiler is just crashing on every test. Thanks, Mark

11 months, 4 weeks

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain