-----Original Message----- From: Thiago Jung Bauermann thiago.bauermann@linaro.org Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 3:40 PM To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC) quic_apinski@quicinc.com Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hello Andrew,
"Andrew Pinski (QUIC)" quic_apinski@quicinc.com writes:
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.
Is the PR number correct? I can't find it in GCC bugzilla, nor in Sourceware's.
Sorry typo in this email (off by one error done by my fingers doing a copy), it should have been 114847 (it was correct in the message originally sent to the mailing list).
Should I xfail them for the targets that are known to fail?
In the GDB testsuite, we use kfail in those cases. From gdb/testsuite/README:
KFAIL
Use KFAIL for known problem of GDB itself. You must specify the GDB bug report number, as in these sample tests:
kfail "gdb/13392" "continue to marker 2"or
setup_kfail gdb/13392 "*-*-*" kfail "continue to marker 2"Though from grepping in gcc/testsuite it doesn't look like the GCC testsuite does the same.
Yes GCC just uses xfail and does not use kfail. The bigger issue is that I know for sure that arm and powerpc are known to fail currently (there might be other targets but I could only test those via compiler explore looking and just looking at the code generation to). Basically this patch is to fix the aarch64 backend and add generic testcases as there was no generic testcases beforehand. The loonarch folks fixed that backend in December but didn't add a generic testcase (which would have shown the failures on other targets earlier too).
Anyways I am working on a v2 from Wilco's suggestion from the bug report. As I mentioned I only know arm was broken because I looked at the resulting code there but I am 100% sure there are other non-major targets where we will be getting failures on this testcase.
Thanks, Andrew
-- Thiago