On 4 November 2016 at 17:28, Jerry DeLisle <jvdeli...@charter.net> wrote: > On 11/04/2016 07:11 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 4 November 2016 at 14:48, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 30 October 2016 at 21:40, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jerry, >>>> > --- snip --- >>> >>> >>> The new test fails at execution on arm and aarch64: >>> >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -O0 execution test >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -O1 execution test >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -O2 execution test >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops >>> -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -O3 -g execution test >>> gfortran.dg/fmt_t_9.f -Os execution test >>> >>> seen on gcc-5 and gcc-6 branches. Maybe I missed it on trunk due to >>> larger granularity in validations. > > > Hi Christophe, > > The patch is very non target specific. All I can think at the moment is its > related to buffering and flushing details, or an error in the test case. > > When I get a chance, I would like to send you a test program to maybe help > debug this. Or, is there a machine available I cant ssh into and work on it > there? >
I am building cross-compilers, testing with qemu. However, there are aarch64 machines available in the GCC farm, maybe you have access to them? Thanks, Christophe > Jerry >
