Hi Siddhesh, The reason that the notification was sent is because a pre-existing test failure was renamed from ...
>> | FAIL: gcc.dg/pr41123.c (internal compiler error: in gen_movsf, at >> /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:74 ... to ... >> | FAIL: gcc.dg/pr41123.c (internal compiler error: in gen_movsf, at >> config/arm/arm.md:7450) I don't see any immediate reason why your patch would cause a test to get renamed, so we'll investigate. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Jan 29, 2025, at 14:52, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org> wrote: > > Has the bisect somehow failed in this? It's highly unlikely that a test > macro would cause an ICE, unless it somehow exposed a latent bug, which also > seems very unlikely in this context. > > Sid > > On 2025-01-28 20:48, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: >> Dear contributor, >> Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please >> find some details below. >> In gcc_check master-arm, after: >> | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/105574 >> | Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org> >> | Date: Tue Jan 28 12:43:50 2025 -0500 >> | >> | [PATCH v3] testsuite/118127: Pass fortran tests on ppc64le for >> IEEE128 long doubles >> | >> | Denormal behaviour is well defined for IEEE128 long doubles, so don't >> | XFAIL some gfortran tests on ppc64le when configured with the IEEE128 >> | long double ABI. >> | ... 13 lines of the commit log omitted. >> | ... applied on top of baseline commit: >> | 2abc555a80b Daily bump. >> Produces 1 regressions 1 improvements: >> | >> | regressions.sum: >> | Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ... >> | FAIL: gcc.dg/pr41123.c (internal compiler error: in gen_movsf, at >> config/arm/arm.md:7450) >> | >> | improvements.sum: >> | Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ... >> | FAIL: gcc.dg/pr41123.c (internal compiler error: in gen_movsf, at >> /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/config/arm/arm.md:7450) >> Used configuration : >> *CI config* tcwg_gcc_check master-arm >> *configure and test flags:* --target arm-linux-gnueabihf >> If you have any questions regarding this report, please ask on >> linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list. >> -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- >> The information below contains the details of the failures, and the ways to >> reproduce a debug environment: >> You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in >> * >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/10965/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/00-sumfiles/ >> The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make >> commands are in >> * >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/10965/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/ >> The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in >> * >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/10965/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail >> Current build : >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/10965/artifact/artifacts >> Reference build : >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/3358/artifact/artifacts >> Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update >> generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the >> master files. > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
