Regressions on master at commit r15-3886 vs commit r15-3883 on Linux/i686
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/part-vect-popcount-1.c scan-assembler-times
vpopcntb[^\n\r]*xmm[0-9] 4
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/part-vect-popcount-1.c scan-assembler-times
vpopcntw[^\n\r]*xmm[0-9] 3
New passes:
On Linux/x86_64,
08b8341f209be7c7e301853bdbbcad4f8e1695f5 is the first bad commit
commit 08b8341f209be7c7e301853bdbbcad4f8e1695f5
Author: Konstantinos Eleftheriou
Date: Thu Sep 5 15:59:59 2024 +0200
match: Change (A * B) + (-C) to (B - C/A) * A, if C multiple of A [PR109393]
caused
FAIL:
Regressions on master at commit r15-3874 vs commit r15-3871 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O2 (test for excess errors
Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your
patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please
follow up on linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's
#linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on
Regressions on master at commit r15-3872 vs commit r15-3869 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O2 (test for excess errors
Regressions on master at commit r15-3874 vs commit r15-3871 on Linux/i686
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: 30_threads/future/members/poll.cc -std=gnu++17 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/unsigned_25.f90 -O1 (test for excess error
Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your
patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please
follow up on linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's
#linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on
Regressions on master at commit r15-3854 vs commit r15-3848 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/save-temps c_lto_save-temps_0.o-c_lto_save-temps_0.o link, -O
-flto -save-temps
New passes:
Regressions on master at commit r15-3869 vs commit r15-3861 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr109393.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "return 1;" 3
New passes:
Regressions on master at commit r15-3869 vs commit r15-3857 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr109393.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "return 1;" 3
New passes:
I filed PR116845 for this.
Regressions on master at commit r15-3871 vs commit r15-3863 on Linux/i686
New failures:
FAIL: 30_threads/future/members/poll.cc -std=gnu++17 execution test
New passes:
On 24/09/2024 22:20, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Sep 25, 2024, at 05:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 21/09/2024 08:49, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote:
Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your
patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any question
Regressions on master at commit r15-3861 vs commit r15-3857 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/save-temps c_lto_save-temps_0.o-c_lto_save-temps_0.o link, -O
-flto -save-temps
Regressions on master at commit r15-3863 vs commit r15-3857 on Linux/i686
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr109393.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "return 1;" 3
New passes:
15 matches
Mail list logo