On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 11:56, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 22:07, <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/109240 > > | Author: Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> > > | Date: Wed Mar 26 17:19:11 2025 +0000 > > | > > | [PATCH] arm: don't vectorize fmaxf() unless unsafe math opts are > > enabled > > | > > | This test has presumably been failing since vectorization was > > enabled > > | at -O2. I suspect part of the reason this wasn't picked up sooner > > is > > | that the test is a hybrid execution/scan-assembler test and the > > | ... 29 lines of the commit log omitted. > > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > > | 876a521a198 OpenMP: Fix declaration in append-args-interop.c test case > > > > Produces 2 regressions 2 improvements: > > | > > | regressions.sum: > > | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/vect-fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times > > vmaxnm.f32\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 1 > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/vect-fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times > > vminnm.f32\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 1 > > | > > | improvements.sum: > > | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times > > vmaxnm.f32\ts[0-9]+, s[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 1 > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times > > vminnm.f32\ts[0-9]+, s[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 1 > > > > Hi Richard, > > I suspect the scripts were confused because there were some bugs in > dg-directives during a few days, leading to random Tcl errors. > > You've committed your patch by now anyway, just mentioning in case you > are confused. > > Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience, >
Hmm actually I was confused :-) The postcommit CI shows the same thing: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c now PASSes but gcc.target/arm/vect-fmaxmin.c now FAILs. Do we want to add -funsafe-math-optimizations to it? > Christophe > > > > > Used configuration : > > *CI config* tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > *configure and test flags:* none, autodetected on > > armv8l-unknown-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/11651/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/11651/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/11651/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > > > Current build : > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/11651/artifact/artifacts > > Reference build : > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/3611/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
