On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've gone ahead and committed changes to incorporate patches for recent
> upstream commits. After a full build, I'm a little uncomfortable about the
> gcc patch. It is 7648 lines and the build shows several unexpected
> failures that were not present before.
>
> Running target unix
> FAIL: 20_util/shared_ptr/cons/58659.cc (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: 20_util/shared_ptr/cons/58659.cc compilation failed to produce
> executable
> FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc execution
> test
> FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc
> execution test
>
> === libstdc++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 10365
> # of unexpected failures 3
> # of expected failures 65
> # of unresolved testcases 1
> # of unsupported tests 282
>
> Running target unix
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for
> excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -Os (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin
> -flto-partition=none (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr29119.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512dq-vextractf64x2-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vextractf64x2[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+.{7}(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512dq-vextracti64x2-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vextracti64x2[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+.{7}(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0dpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0dpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0dpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0dpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0dps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0dps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0dps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0dps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0qpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0qpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0qpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0qpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0qps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0qps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf0qps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf0qps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1dpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1dpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1dpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1dpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1dps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1dps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1dps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1dps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1qpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1qpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1qpd-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1qpd[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1qps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1qps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\)(?:\\n|[ \\\\t]+#) 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512pf-vscatterpf1qps-1.c scan-assembler-times
> vscatterpf1qps[ \\\\t]+[^{\\n]*%zmm[0-9]+[^\\n]*\\\\){%k[1-7]}(?:\\n|[
> \\\\t]+#) 1
>
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 114794
> # of unexpected failures 26
> # of expected failures 262
> # of unsupported tests 1794
>
> -------------------
>
> How should we approach this? The easy way is to not apply the new patch.
> Additionally I do not know what the patch is supposed to fix.
>
> How should we go on this? I will hold off on -rc2 until we can reach a
> consensus.
>
> -- Bruce
>
I am inclined to leave the patch out. Just in time actually, as I will run
a build overnight for -rc2, and I will see if these still appear without
the patch. I can easily run another build if the consensus it to leave it
in the book. These test results look very eerie.
Douglas R. Reno
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
