Andre, I am sorry but I don't have the slightest idea. I don't have an ARM system to test it on and so I am waiting for some indications from them. As soon as I know, you will too :-) As I indicated in my email to them, I think that the FAIL at -O1 is bogus.
Cheers Paul On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 11:20, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > please, please, please let me know what the cause was. I have a similar > error > that my testcase fails, but for -O2, -O3 and -Os, which I have not figured > yet. > > - Andre > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:10:37 +0100 > Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Andre, > > > > I have to hold back on the commit until the business below is sorted out. > > > > Cheers > > > > Paul > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> > > Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 08:48 > > Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #93154: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm > > To: <linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org> > > > > > > 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 > > > -- > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de >
