On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:27 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:19 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-12-11 at 19:20 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote: > > > I'm not sure how to do this. I tried the following commands, but > > > this > > > fails even on master: > > > > > > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable- > > > languages=c,jit,c++,fortran,objc,lto --enable-checking=release -- > > > disable-werror --prefix=/opt/gcc > > > > > > make bootstrap -j24 > > > make -k check -j24 > > > > > > From what I can understand, the unexpected failures are in g++: > > > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 72790 > > > # of unexpected failures 1 > > > # of expected failures 1011 > > > # of unsupported tests 3503 > > > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > > > # of expected passes 4750 > > > # of unexpected failures 27 > > > # of expected failures 16 > > > # of unsupported tests 43 > > > > > > > > > Am I doing something wrong? > > > > I normally do a pair of bootstrap/tests: a "control" build with a > > pristine copy of the source tree, and an "experiment" build > > containing > > the patch(s) of interest, then compare the results. FWIW given > > that > > each one takes 2 hours on my machine, I normally just do one > > control > > build on a Monday, rebase all my working copies to that revision, > > and > > then use that control build throughout the week for comparison when > > testing patches. > > > > I can have a go at testing an updated patch if you like; presumably > > the > > latest version is this one: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638841.html > > right? > > Thanks. I would appreciate if you do it. > Yes, this is the latest patch.
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; the only change in results was jit.sum's # of PASS results increased by 15, as expected. No jit.sum failures, and no regressions elsewhere in the testsuites. I've pushed it to trunk as r14-7117-g8415bceea9d3ca. Dave > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 12:49 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote: > > > > > Here's the updated patch. > > > > > The failure was due to the test being in the test array while > > > > > it > > > > > should > > > > > not have been there since it changes the context. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated patch. > > > > > > > > Did you do a full bootstrap and regression test with this one, > > > > or > > > > do > > > > you want me to? > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > >
