linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

5 participants
5620 discussions

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.40.9000-2-g4dc22baa84b: FAIL: 6 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. 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-1295 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In glibc_check master-arm after: | commit glibc-2.40.9000-2-g4dc22baa84b | Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann(a)inria.fr> | Date: Mon Jul 22 08:54:23 2024 +0200 | | This patch adds larger ulp errors for the log2p1 function. | | Changes in v2: | - added larger error for long double on AMD reported by Adhemerval | (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2024-June/157755.html) | | Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella(a)linaro.org> FAIL: 6 regressions regressions.sum: === glibc tests === Running glibc:math ... FAIL: math/test-double-log2p1 FAIL: math/test-float-log2p1 FAIL: math/test-float32-log2p1 FAIL: math/test-float32x-log2p1 FAIL: math/test-float64-log2p1 FAIL: math/test-ldouble-log2p1 You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1585/artifact/… The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1585/artifact/… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1585/artifact/… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_glibc_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_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1585/artifact/… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1583/artifact/… Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4dc22baa84bdb4111c0a… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_glibc_check ** master-arm *** FAIL: 6 regressions *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/1585/artifact/…

1 year

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2110-g71b31690a7c5: Failure 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. 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-1294 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig after: | commit gcc-15-2110-g71b31690a7c5 | Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford(a)arm.com> | Date: Wed Jul 17 19:38:11 2024 +0100 | | rtl-ssa: Fix split_clobber_group [PR115928] | | One of the goals of the rtl-ssa representation was to allow a | group of consecutive clobbers to be skipped in constant time, | with amortised sublinear insertion and deletion. This involves | putting consecutive clobbers in groups. Splitting or joining | groups would be linear if we had to update every clobber on | ... 21 lines of the commit log omitted. Results changed to # reset_artifacts: -10 # build_abe binutils: -9 # build_abe stage1: -5 # build_abe qemu: -2 # linux_n_obj: 0 From # reset_artifacts: -10 # build_abe binutils: -9 # build_abe stage1: -5 # build_abe qemu: -2 # linux_n_obj: 7865 # linux build successful: all # linux boot successful: boot The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/… 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/71b31690a7c52413496e91bcc5ee4c68af… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_kernel ** gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig *** Failure *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/…

1 year

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2165-g01c095ab77f8: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

by Sam James

FAIL: gcc.dg/pr116003.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:4:1: sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(5)' is not supported on this target /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:8:1: sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(129)' is not supported on this target /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:11:5: sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(128)' is not supported on this target I think it needs dg-do compile { target bitint }.

1 year

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2026-g44c9403ed183: Failure 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 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-1282 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig after: | commit gcc-15-2026-g44c9403ed183 | Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx(a)kernel.org> | Date: Sat Jun 29 15:10:43 2024 +0200 | | c, objc: Add -Wunterminated-string-initialization | | Warn about the following: | | char s[3] = "foo"; | | Initializing a char array with a string literal of the same length as | ... 63 lines of the commit log omitted. Results changed to # reset_artifacts: -10 # build_abe binutils: -9 # build_abe stage1: -5 # build_abe qemu: -2 # linux_n_obj: 24546 From # reset_artifacts: -10 # build_abe binutils: -9 # build_abe stage1: -5 # build_abe qemu: -2 # linux_n_obj: 24548 The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-… 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/44c9403ed1833ae71a59e84f9e37af3182… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_kernel ** gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig *** Failure *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-…

1 year, 1 month

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #93154: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

by Paul Richard Thomas

Hi there, You detected a failure in gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90: PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O0 execution test PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O1 execution test PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O2 (test for excess errors) PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O2 execution test PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer ...snip... PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer ...snip... PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -g execution test PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -Os (test for excess errors) PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -Os execution test The stop message in the full log indicates a numeric error in the first test. I am unable to reproduce the error. Adding deallocation of all the allocated variables (which I should have done in the first place) and running valgrind with -s shows no errors and no memory loss. I find it odd that it should fail once at -O1 and not at -O2 and higher. Can you provide me with any insights; eg, by rerunning the testcase outside of the dejagnu framework? Thank you for doing this testing, by the way, even if the failure is a bit obscure at the moment. Best regards Paul

1 year, 1 month

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in binutils: Failure on arm

by Ulf Samuelsson

I get this problem when the CI is building a patchset for the binutils with my patches. The patchset consists of 7 patches, and I suspect that this error message is generated when only part of the 7 patches are applied. Could this be true? They are interdependent, so there is no way to reorder the patches to make this work if not all the patches are applied. Den 2024-07-07 kl. 02:47, skrev ci_notify(a)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 binutils_build master-arm after: > > | 2 patches in binutils > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/93436 > | dd57e0ed6f6 ldgram.y: Add ASCII parsing > | 304119944bb ldlex.l: Add ASCII token > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 85a67d0a39a Automatic date update in version.in > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_abe binutils: > # FAILED > # First few build errors in logs: > # 00:01:58 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/binutils.git~master/ld/ldgram.y:711:21: error: too many arguments to function ‘lang_add_string’ > # 00:01:58 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/binutils.git~master/ld/ldgram.y:717:19: error: too many arguments to function ‘lang_add_string’ > # 00:01:58 make[4]: *** [Makefile:2290: ldgram.o] Error 1 > # 00:01:58 make[3]: *** [Makefile:1903: all-recursive] Error 1 > # 00:01:58 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1092: all] Error 2 > # 00:01:58 make[1]: *** [Makefile:8044: all-ld] Error 2 > # 00:01:58 make: *** [Makefile:1028: all] Error 2 > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_abe binutils: > 1 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_binutils_build master-arm > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_binutils_build--master-arm-precommit/2298/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_binutils_build--master-arm-build/1304/artifa… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files. -- Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson

1 year, 1 month

C++ standard library for build bot clang-armv8-lld-2stage

by mingmingl

Greetings! This is Mingming and I'm an LLVM contributor. I have received a lot of useful code review feedback from aarch64 experts. Thank you for all of that! I'm writing to report a failure ( https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/122/builds/150) on buildbot clang-armv8-lld-2stage triggered by my recent patch. The issue seems to stem from the C++ standard libraries not being configured in the buildbot environment. While using a c-style header is a workaround (which pr 97245 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97245> did), @petrhosek reminded me that it would be good to inform maintainers so they can take a look, which makes sense to me. Could someone please assist in resolving this configuration problem? Thank you in advance and let me know if I miss anything. Thanks, Mingming

1 year, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 28 Jun

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - patch-review queue has filled up again; reviewed at least some patches ready for an arm pullreq - another KVM Forum PC meeting * QEMU-530 [QEMU ARMv9.5 Baseline CPU for TCG] - realized that FEAT_AFP means we need to refactor our FPCR/FPSR implementation, because it adds new AArch64-only bits that aren't visible in the AArch32 FPSCR format. (QEMU for historical reasons implemented FPCR and FPSR as masked views of FPSCR; now we need to switch to having FPSCR be a view of the FPCR/FPSR data.) Wrote the necessary refactoring and sent patchseries out for review. -- PMM

1 year, 1 month

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Release structures on function return

by Jørgen Kvalsvik

I think we need to revert this. I got this email from linaro/gcc-regressions: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-1649-g19f630e6ae8d: FAIL: 2 regressions on aarch64 regressions.sum: === gcc tests === Running gcc:gcc.misc-tests/gcov.exp ... FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-23.c (internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:910) FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-23.c (test for excess errors) This did not reproduce on my machine, but I took a quick look at the hash-map implementation. hash_map.put calls hash_table.find_slot_with_hash, which calls hash_table.expand, which does move+destroy. auto_vec is not really move-aware which leads to a double-free. The fix is either to make auto_vec move-aware (and more like C++'s std::vector) or revert this patch and apply the original version with an explicit release. OK? Thanks, Jørgen On 6/25/24 12:23, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> The value vec objects are destroyed on exit, but release still needs to >> be called explicitly. >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * tree-profile.cc (find_conditions): Release vectors before >> return. > I wonder if you turn > hash_map<int_hash<unsigned, 0>, vec<basic_block>> exprs; > to > hash_map<int_hash<unsigned, 0>, auto_vec<basic_block>> exprs; > Won't hash_map destructor take care of this by itself? > > Honza >> --- >> gcc/tree-profile.cc | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-profile.cc b/gcc/tree-profile.cc >> index e4bb689cef5..18f48e8d04e 100644 >> --- a/gcc/tree-profile.cc >> +++ b/gcc/tree-profile.cc >> @@ -919,6 +919,9 @@ find_conditions (struct function *fn) >> if (!have_post_dom) >> free_dominance_info (fn, CDI_POST_DOMINATORS); >> >> + for (auto expr : exprs) >> + expr.second.release (); >> + >> cov->m_masks.safe_grow_cleared (2 * cov->m_index.last ()); >> const size_t length = cov_length (cov); >> for (size_t i = 0; i != length; i++) >> -- >> 2.39.2 >>

1 year, 1 month

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf5: FAIL: 4 regressions on aarch64

by Surya Kumari Jangala

Hi, I am looking into these regressions. Regards, Surya On 26/06/24 7:51 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 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-1270 , 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-15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf5 > | Author: Surya Kumari Jangala <jskumari(a)linux.ibm.com> > | Date: Tue Jun 25 08:37:49 2024 -0500 > | > | ira: Scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with block frequency > | > | In assign_hard_reg(), when computing the costs of the hard registers, the > | cost of saving/restoring a callee-save hard register in prolog/epilog is > | taken into consideration. However, this cost is not scaled with the entry > | block frequency. Without scaling, the cost of saving/restoring is quite > | small and this can result in a callee-save register being chosen by > | ... 14 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 4 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === g++ tests === > > Running g++:g++.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sve-acle.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/general/cpy_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve -moverride=tune=none check-function-bodies dup_x0_m > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.dg/pr10474.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing shrink-wrapping" > > Running gcc:gcc.target/aarch64/sve/acle/aarch64-sve-acle.exp ... > ... and 5 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2235/artifac… > 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-aarch64-build/2235/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2235/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/2235/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2234/artifac… > > 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/3b9b8d6cfdf59337f4b7ce10ce92a98044… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-aarch64 > *** 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-aarch64-build/2235/artifac…

1 year, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain