On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi
> > (both bare-metal) configurations even after moving up to dejagnu
> > 1.5.1. If this can't be fixed easily should we consider reverting this
> > patch in the interest of getting sane test results on bare-metal
> > targets before the release ?
> >
> > Should we also update the prereqs page to say dejagnu 1.5.1 ?
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html)
>
> Jason has disabled the problematic test temporarily last night, can you
> please verify bare-metal cross-testing now works?
I just noticed that I see this error, so the problem still
exists at r209347 (seen for cris-elf).
(The FAILs are old and provided only for context; the ERRORs are
fatal.)
...
Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 13)
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 13)
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++1y (test for warnings, line 13)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-17.2.C -std=c++11 (test for errors, line 19)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-17.2.C -std=c++1y (test for errors, line 19)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-21.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-21.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-39.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-39.C -std=gnu++1y (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-51.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-51.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/dso/dlclose1-dso.cc (test for excess errors)
ERROR: tcl error sourcing /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp.
ERROR: can't rename "dg-save-unknown": command doesn't exist
while executing
"rename dg-save-unknown unknown"
(procedure "saved-dg-test" line 96)
invoked from within
"saved-dg-test /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dso/dlclose1.C
-std=c++98 { -pedantic-errors -Wno-long-long}"
("eval" body line 1)
invoked from within
"eval saved-dg-test $args "
(procedure "dg-test" line 11)
invoked from within
"dg-test $test $flags ${default-extra-flags}"
(procedure "g++-dg-runtest" line 27)
invoked from within
"g++-dg-runtest $tests $DEFAULT_CXXFLAGS"
(file "/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp" line 60)
invoked from within
"source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp"
("uplevel" body line 1)
invoked from within
"uplevel #0 source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp"
invoked from within
"catch "uplevel #0 source $test_file_name""
Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp ...
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp.
ERROR: can't rename "unknown": command doesn't exist
while executing
"rename unknown dg-save-unknown"
(procedure "saved-dg-test" line 69)
invoked from within
"saved-dg-test /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov-1.C
-std=gnu++98 {}"
("eval" body line 1)
invoked from within
"eval saved-dg-test $args "
(procedure "dg-test" line 11)
invoked from within
"dg-test $test $flags ${default-extra-flags}"
(procedure "g++-dg-runtest" line 27)
invoked from within
"g++-dg-runtest [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.C]] """
(file "/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp" line 42)
invoked from within
"source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp"
("uplevel" body line 1)
invoked from within
"uplevel #0 source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp"
invoked from within
"catch "uplevel #0 source $test_file_name""
Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/gomp.exp ...
So, I've lost track of regression state since this error was
introduced. (I had a grep supposed to watch for errors like
this to treat it as a build error, but unfortunately the pattern
was too narrow.)
Can this please be reverted and a patch circulated for testing
instead?
brgds, H-P
