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 appreciate 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-1221
> , 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-15-937-g7e322d576eb
> | Author: Rainer Orth <ro(a)CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
> | Date: Fri May 31 09:29:38 2024 +0200
> |
> | testsuite: Adjust several dg-additional-files-options calls [PR115294]
> |
> | A recent patch
> |
> | commit bdc264a16e327c63d133131a695a202fbbc0a6a0
> | Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)adacore.com>
> | Date: Thu May 30 02:06:48 2024 -0300
> | ... 42 lines of the commit log omitted.
>
> FAIL: 8 regressions
I couldn't find a way to comment on the issue page directly, and I
refuse to spend any time on some random CI system du jour.
This is a false positive: the previous commit
commit bdc264a16e327c63d133131a695a202fbbc0a6a0
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva(a)adacore.com>
Date: Thu May 30 02:06:48 2024 -0300
broke libgomp testing, hiding any previous failures as described in PR
testsuite/115294. My patch restored testing, so all failures previously
visible are now visible again.
Those failures are well known and tracked as PR testsuite/115140, no
regression here.
Progress (short week, three days):
* UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership]
- another week of pretty much just code review:
+ more of RTH's decodetree conversion series (several rounds)
+ "Connect STM32L4x5 USART devices to the EXTI" v2
+ "Check clock connection between STM32L4x5 RCC and peripherals" v3
+ fixes to some GICv2 corner case behaviours
+ move the sbsa-ref default CPU up to Neoverse-N2
+ v2 of patchset adding SMP support to xilinx-zynq board model
+ patch fixing a bug in the error-exit codepath of a virtio-pci
function (reported by Coverity)
+ BCM2835 One-Time-Programmable Memory device emulation
+ RTH's patchset adding SPARC support to risu
+ Alex's patches to add a SYS_GET_CMDLINE test to the semihosting-tests
+ Patch to make ID_AA64ZFR0_EL1 read as 0 when user disables SVE
- sent a patch to fix a bug spotted by Coverity in a recent change to
the xlnx-dpdma device
- multiple target-arm pullreqs
-- PMM
Hi Harald,
On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 21:02, <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 appreciate 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-1214 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix.
>
> In master-aarch64 after:
>
> | commit gcc-15-168-g21e7aa5f3ea
> | Author: Harald Anlauf <anlauf(a)gmx.de>
> | Date: Mon Apr 29 19:52:52 2024 +0200
> |
> | Fortran: fix issues with class(*) assignment [PR114827]
> |
> | gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
> |
> | PR fortran/114827
> | * trans-array.cc (gfc_alloc_allocatable_for_assignment): Take into
> | account _len of unlimited polymorphic entities when calculating
> | ... 9 lines of the commit log omitted.
>
> FAIL: 6 regressions
>
> regressions.sum:
> === gfortran tests ===
>
> Running gfortran:gfortran.dg/asan/asan.exp ...
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/asan/unlimited_polymorphic_34.f90 -fsanitize=address -Os execution test
>
>
> You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
> The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
> The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
>
> The configuration of this build is:
> CI config tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc master-aarch64
Sorry for the delay in coming back to you regarding this notification.
You can consider this as a false alarm, caused by the fact that the
above configurations use QEMU, which is not (currently) compatible
with LSAN (which is enabled by ASAN).
We are working on a fix in our testing framework to avoid such issues
in the future.
Thanks,
Christophe
>
> -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------
> The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
>
> Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
> Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
>
> 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/21e7aa5f3ea44ca2fef8deb8788edffc04…
>
> List of configurations that regressed due to this commit :
> * tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc
> ** master-aarch64
> *** FAIL: 6 regressions
> *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh…
> *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/14…
Progress (short week, three days):
* UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership]
- spent pretty much all week working through the code review backlog
that had built up while I was on holiday and at Connect:
+ RTH's patchset making various updates to the risu
random-instruction-sequence tester
+ a patchset fixing some bugs in our GICv2 emulation
+ patches adding the cache controller and SMP support to xilinx-zynq
+ patchset modelling the STM32L4x5 USART interrupt lines properly
+ Alex's patches to the semihosting tests for SYS_GET_CMDLINE
+ a patch to fix an assert in the hcd-ohci USB controller if the
guest does something silly
+ reviewed the first half of RTH's 60-patch patchset converting the
A64 SIMD decode to decodetree (second half for next week...)
-- PMM
Hi all,
I received this message about my patch failing to build. It probably is
my fault, but I cannot figure out why, it bootstraps without problems on
my own computer. All of my attempts to reproduce have failed, and I
don't have any ideas would could cause this.
All of my guesses for fixes haven't worked, and I'm really at the end of
my knowledge and ability.
Thanks,
Peter D.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89969: Failure on aarch64
Date: 2024-05-12 17:14
From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org
To: peter0x44(a)disroot.org
Reply-To: linaro-toolchain(a)lists.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 appreciate 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/89969
| Author: Peter Damianov <peter0x44(a)disroot.org>
| Date: Sun May 12 06:38:58 2024 -0700
|
| driver: Output to a temp file; rename upon success [PR80182]
|
| Currently, commands like:
| gcc -o file.c -lm
| will delete the user's code.
|
| This patch makes the linker write executables to a temp file,
and then renames
| ... 15 lines of the commit log omitted.
| ... applied on top of baseline commit:
| 46077992180 arm: Use utxb rN, rM, ror #8 to implement zero_extract
on armv6.
Results changed to
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# true:
0
# build_abe gcc:
# FAILED
# First few build errors in logs:
# 00:04:12 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1005: libgcc_s.so] Error 1
# 00:04:12 make[1]: *** [Makefile:14340: all-target-libgcc] Error 2
# 00:04:12 make: *** [Makefile:1062: all] Error 2
From
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# true:
0
# build_abe gcc:
1
The configuration of this build is:
CI config tcwg_gcc_build 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_build--master-aarch64-precommit/8869/art…
Reference build :
https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64-build/2030/artifac…
Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update
generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the
master files.
Hi Pedro,
As you may have noticed, this patch caused new failures on arm.
Are you working on a fix?
Thanks,
Christophe
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 16:59, <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 appreciate 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-1198 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix.
>
> In gdb_check master-arm after:
>
> | commit gdb-14-branchpoint-2094-gc223d373883
> | Author: Pedro Alves <pedro(a)palves.net>
> | Date: Tue May 2 15:04:28 2023 +0100
> |
> | Fix setting watchpoints when current thread is running
> |
> | Currently, when the current thread is running, you can print global
> | variables. However, if you try to set a watchpoint on the same
> | globals, GDB errors out, complaining that the selected thread is
> | running. Like so:
> |
> | ... 37 lines of the commit log omitted.
>
> FAIL: 5 regressions
>
> regressions.sum:
> === gdb tests ===
>
> Running gdb:gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp ...
> FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: all-stop: hardware: watch global_var
> FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: all-stop: hardware: watchpoint hit (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: non-stop: hardware: watch global_var
> FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: non-stop: hardware: watchpoint hit (timeout)
>
> Running gdb:gdb.threads/signal-command-handle-nopass.exp ...
> FAIL: gdb.threads/signal-command-handle-nopass.exp: step-over no: signal SIGUSR1
> ... and 1 more entries
>
> You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar…
> The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar…
> The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar…
>
> 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-build/1050/artifact/ar…
> Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1047/artifact/ar…
>
> Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh…
>
> Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=c223d37388320…
>
> List of configurations that regressed due to this commit :
> * tcwg_gdb_check
> ** master-arm
> *** FAIL: 5 regressions
> *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh…
> *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar…
Progress:
* UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership]
- last bits of prep and admin for Connect
- investigating what we should do with the MPIDR when the user
specifies a topology setup when the CPU being emulated is or
is not one with MPIDR.MT set. I had written this up as a
"bitesized task" in the bug system, but unfortunately it is
turning out to be hairier than I had thought at the time...
* QEMU-530 [QEMU ARMv9.5 Baseline CPU for TCG]
- Finished and sent out patches to implement FEAT_WFxT emulation
(WFI/WFE with a timeout)
-- PMM
These are all expected "failures" for arm (aarch32) really; the new testcases were known to fail for that target; it is recorded as PR 224847. I was not sure how to record this besides in the commit message.
Should I xfail them for the targets that are known to fail?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org <ci_notify(a)linaro.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 3:15 PM
> To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC) <quic_apinski(a)quicinc.com>
> Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm
>
> 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 appreciate 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_check master-arm after:
>
> | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/89057
> | Author: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski(a)quicinc.com>
> | Date: Fri Apr 26 10:07:40 2024 -0700
> |
> | aarch64: Fix normal returns inside functions which use eh_returns
> [PR114843]
> |
> | The problem here is that on a normal return path, we still restore the
> | eh data return when we should not.
> | Instead of one return path in the case of eh_return, this changes over
> | to use multiple returns pathes just like a normal function.
> | On the normal path (non-eh return), we need to skip restoring of the eh
> | ... 43 lines of the commit log omitted.
> | ... applied on top of baseline commit:
> | 6b86f71165d AArch64: Cleanup memset expansion
>
> FAIL: 28 regressions
>
> regressions.sum:
> === gcc tests ===
>
> Running gcc:gcc.c-torture/execute/execute.exp ...
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -
> flto-partition=none execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-
> fat-lto-objects execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O3 -g execution test
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -Os execution test ... and 22 more
> entries
>
> You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-
> precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/00-sumfiles/
> The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make
> commands are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-
> precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/
> The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in
> - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-
> precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail
>
> 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-
> precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts
> Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-
> build/2027/artifact/artifacts
>
> Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update
> generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the master
> files.
Progress:
* UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership]
- made the 9.0 release and handed over pullreq processing to RTH
for the 9.1 cycle
- collected up and sent out the first target-arm pullreq for 9.1
- finished creating JIRA issues for QEMU for FEAT_* features
to bring us into sync with the rev K.a Arm ARM
* QEMU-530 [QEMU ARMv9.5 Baseline CPU for TCG]
- Sent out v2 of the "make CNTFRQ 1GHz" patchset. This version
includes patches to keep sbsa-ref on the old 62.5MHz frequency
(since there's no TF-A release yet with the fix to make it not
hardcode that value)
- Started looking at FEAT_WFxT (WFI/WFE with a timeout)
-- PMM