We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto builder itself. I've started a log at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you respawn the build and notify me?
-- Michael
On 28 June 2012 05:55, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto builder itself. I've started a log at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you respawn the build and notify me?
OK.
-Zhenqiang
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036 armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
What's about this one? ~michaelh1/gcc-linaro/later-split-symrefs/+merge/112479 armv7l-natty-cbuild339-tcpanda05-cortexa9r1
-PASS: 27_io/basic_filebuf/close/char/9964.cc execution test +FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/close/char/9964.cc execution test
Thanks! -Zhenqiang On 28 June 2012 09:19, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 28 June 2012 05:55, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto builder itself. I've started a log at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you respawn the build and notify me?
OK.
-Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036 armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Not sure there. Ulrich, could that real?
What's about this one? ~michaelh1/gcc-linaro/later-split-symrefs/+merge/112479 armv7l-natty-cbuild339-tcpanda05-cortexa9r1
-PASS: 27_io/basic_filebuf/close/char/9964.cc execution test +FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/close/char/9964.cc execution test
Yip, that's common but undiagnosed. I've added it to the list.
Thanks! -Zhenqiang On 28 June 2012 09:19, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 28 June 2012 05:55, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto builder itself. I've started a log at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you respawn the build and notify me?
OK.
-Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 11:28, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036 armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Not sure there. Ulrich, could that real?
If you check the log in previous test http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826..., the case is not shown as "UNSUPPORTED".
So it seams it is a test environment issue.
Thanks! -Zhenqiang
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
In previous test, we have -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
-Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 11:40, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 11:28, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036 armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Not sure there. Ulrich, could that real?
If you check the log in previous test http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826..., the case is not shown as "UNSUPPORTED".
So it seams it is a test environment issue.
Thanks! -Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
In previous test, we have -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Have you tried looking into the logs. gcc.log.xz and gcc.sum.xz should show what's happening ? Having said that I took a quick look and there's something funny. I don't find an unsupported case in those logs, but the testsuite-diff shows it. I don't fully understand what's going on here.
Ramana
-Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 11:40, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 11:28, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036 armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Not sure there. Ulrich, could that real?
If you check the log in previous test http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826..., the case is not shown as "UNSUPPORTED".
So it seams it is a test environment issue.
Thanks! -Zhenqiang
linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
In previous test, we have -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Have you tried looking into the logs. gcc.log.xz and gcc.sum.xz should show what's happening ? Having said that I took a quick look and there's something funny. I don't find an unsupported case in those logs, but the testsuite-diff shows it. I don't fully understand what's going on here.
Ramana
For atomic-other-short.c, error is from gdb. Here is the log from gcc.log.xz at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-spl...
/cbuild/slaves/ursa1/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-split-symrefs/gcc/gcc-linaro-4.7/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate-thread.gdb:11: Error in sourced command file:UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
For bitfields-3.c, you can find log in g++.log.xz. Still error from gdb.
/cbuild/slaves/ursa1/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-split-symrefs/gcc/gcc-linaro-4.7/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate-thread.gdb:11: Error in sourced command file: You can't do that without a process to debug. UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Thanks! -Zhenqiang
On 29 June 2012 11:00, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
In previous test, we have -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Have you tried looking into the logs. gcc.log.xz and gcc.sum.xz should show what's happening ? Having said that I took a quick look and there's something funny. I don't find an unsupported case in those logs, but the testsuite-diff shows it. I don't fully understand what's going on here.
Ramana
For atomic-other-short.c, error is from gdb. Here is the log from gcc.log.xz at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-spl...
/cbuild/slaves/ursa1/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-split-symrefs/gcc/gcc-linaro-4.7/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate-thread.gdb:11: Error in sourced command file:UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Hmmm but it didn't show up in the test log from Uli's merge request which is where I looked :)
Ramana
On 29 June 2012 18:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 11:00, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org wrote:
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org wrote:
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
In previous test, we have -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-1.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Have you tried looking into the logs. gcc.log.xz and gcc.sum.xz should show what's happening ? Having said that I took a quick look and there's something funny. I don't find an unsupported case in those logs, but the testsuite-diff shows it. I don't fully understand what's going on here.
Ramana
For atomic-other-short.c, error is from gdb. Here is the log from gcc.log.xz at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-spl...
/cbuild/slaves/ursa1/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-split-symrefs/gcc/gcc-linaro-4.7/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate-thread.gdb:11: Error in sourced command file:UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Hmmm but it didn't show up in the test log from Uli's merge request which is where I looked :)
Sorry for misleading. The two new fails are from Michael's merge request.
For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826... (This test is respawned by Michael)
But the case PASS in the original test. Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826...
So I think atomic-other-int.c is not a real regression.
Thanks! -Zhenqiang
linaro-toolchain-bounces@lists.linaro.org wrote on 29.06.2012 12:19:52:
For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation
test
+UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7 +bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826-4.7-p2/logs/armv7l-precise-cbuild339- ursa4-cortexa9hfr1/ (This test is respawned by Michael)
But the case PASS in the original test. Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7 +bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826-4.7-p2/logs/armv7l-precise-cbuild335- ursa5-cortexa9hfr1/
So I think atomic-other-int.c is not a real regression.
Yes, this typically indicates a difference in which GDB version is installed on the test system ...
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
Ulrich Weigand
-- Dr. Ulrich Weigand | Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 STSM, GNU compiler and toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell/B.E. IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz | Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen | Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
On 29 June 2012 23:07, Ulrich Weigand Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com wrote:
linaro-toolchain-bounces@lists.linaro.org wrote on 29.06.2012 12:19:52:
For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation
test
+UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7 +bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826-4.7-p2/logs/armv7l-precise-cbuild339- ursa4-cortexa9hfr1/ (This test is respawned by Michael)
But the case PASS in the original test. Log at: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7 +bzr115000~uweigand~lp-1010826-4.7-p2/logs/armv7l-precise-cbuild335- ursa5-cortexa9hfr1/
So I think atomic-other-int.c is not a real regression.
Yes, this typically indicates a difference in which GDB version is installed on the test system ...
Let's ignore ursa5 as it's a PandaBoard ES. A recent example is: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-spl...
Different hosts but the same configuration: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr114999/logs/armv7l-precise... http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-spl...
as they're siblings.
The GDB record in the .log files seems the same except for different addresses. They both finish with:
0x0000866c 6 simulate_thread_fini = 1; 0x0000866e 6 simulate_thread_fini = 1; [Inferior 1 (process 22565) exited normally]
but the failing one adds:
/cbuild/slaves/ursa1/gcc-linaro-4.7+bzr115000~michaelh1~later-split-symrefs/gcc/gcc-linaro-4.7/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate-thread.gdb:11: Error in sourced command file: You can't do that without a process to debug. UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
Hmm.
-- Michael
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
-
Michael Hope -
Ramana Radhakrishnan -
Ulrich Weigand -
Zhenqiang Chen