On 06/11/2018 01:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:19 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
>>> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
>>> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
>>> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
>>>
>>> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link,
>>> -flto -std=c++11
>>>
>>> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
>>> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
>>> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
>>> ! FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
>>> ! FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
>>> ! FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
>>
>> I don't know about the LTO issues, but what are the jit.dg failures
>> that you're seeing?
>
> The jit failures look like they're all caused by errors like
> the one below:
>
> FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe killed: 11694 exp5 0 0 CHILDKILLED
> SIGSEGV {segmentation violation}
>
> Besides those above, there are a large number of others. I didn't
> know those we jit tests until I looked at the jit log. The full
> list is below.
>
> ! FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-assembler.c.s (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.so (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (2: +2)
> ! FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-object.c.o (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-accessing-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-accessing-union.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-alignment.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-alignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-arith-overflow.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-array-as-pointer.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-arrays.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-autovectorize.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-benchmark.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-calling-external-function.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-calling-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-combination.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-compile-to-object.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-compound-assignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-constants.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-debug-strings.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-dot-product.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-empty.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-error-array-bounds.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-mismatch.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-too-many.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-error-pr63969-missing-driver.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-expressions.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-extra-options.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-factorial.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-factorial-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-fibonacci.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-functions.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-hello-world.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-linked-list.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-long-names.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-nested-contexts.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-nested-loops.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-operator-overloading.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-pr66700-observing-write-through-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-pr66779.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-quadratic.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-quadratic.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-reading-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-returning-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-string-literal.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-sum-of-squares.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-switch.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-switch.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-threads.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-types.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-using-global.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-validly-unreachable-block.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-vector-rvalues.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-vector-types.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: test-volatile.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: toyvm.cc.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: toyvm.c.exe (1: +1)
> ! FAIL: verify-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
>
> Martin
>
> PS I run the test suite on tor with -j96 in case that helps.
> I've been using -j96 for at least a couple of GCC releases
> with no issues. The only thing that might have changed is
> that lately there is sometimes another parallel build running
> on the machine quite often. It runs as root so I don't know
> for sure who it belongs to. My guess is some automation.
tor/torsion? That's my tester running bootstraps inside chroots for
things like m68k-linux, alpha-linux and the like. I *still* need to su
to myself in the scripts that run within the chroot, but haven't gotten
around to fixing that yet.
Jeff
>
