Regressions on releases/gcc-14 at commit r14-11496 vs commit r14-11494 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on releases/gcc-14 at commit r14-11496 vs commit r14-11494 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 r15-9069 vs commit r15-9068 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-9069 vs commit r15-9068 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 native/master at commit r15-8654 vs commit r15-8643 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-8654 vs commit r15-8643 on Linux/x86_64 New failures: FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/interop-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/interop-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O0 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O1 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O2 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -O3 -g execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/reduce_1.f90 -Os execution test New passes:
Regressions on master at commit r15-9050 vs commit r15-9048 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-9050 vs commit r15-9048 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: FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check
[Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-9144-gdf225ae29a1: 1 regressions 5 improvements on arm
Dear contributor, Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. In arm-eabi v7-a softfp, after: | commit gcc-15-9144-gdf225ae29a1 | Author: Christophe Lyon | Date: Mon Mar 31 19:00:44 2025 + | | testsuite: arm: Fix dg-final in short-vfp-1.c [PR119556] | | Recent syntactic fixes enabled the test, but the result was failing. | | It turns out it was missing a space between the register arguments in | ... 6 lines of the commit log omitted. Produces 1 regressions 5 improvements: | | regressions.sum: | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times vmov\\tr[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 2 | | improvements.sum: | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times vcvt\\.f32\\.s32\\ts[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 | ... and 4 more Used configuration : *CI config* tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc arm-eabi -marm -march=armv7-a -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=softfp *configure and test flags:* --target arm-eabi --disable-multilib --with-mode=arm --with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-float=softfp --target_board=-marm/-march=armv7-a/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16/-mfloat-abi=softfp qemu_cpu=cortex-a9 We track this bug report under https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1558. Please let us know if you have a fix. If you have any questions regarding this report, please ask on linaro-toolch...@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_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi-build/799/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi-build/799/artifact/artifacts/notify/ The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in * https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi-build/799/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi-build/799/artifact/artifacts Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi-build/798/artifact/artifacts Instruction to reproduce the build : https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/df225ae29a147ae40bb44ba14ee979b67fd19c8e/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc/master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi/reproduction_instructions.txt Full commit : https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=df225ae29a147ae40bb44ba14ee979b67fd19c8e
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-8965-gb631ff45f23: 2 regressions 2 improvements on arm
On 29/03/2025 23:18, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > Dear contributor, > > Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find > some details below. > > In master-arm, after: > | commit gcc-15-8965-gb631ff45f23 > | Author: Richard Earnshaw > | Date: Wed Mar 26 15:56:18 2025 + > | > | 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. > > 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 > | Fixed with r15-9064-gf30e180194bfbc R. > | improvements.sum: > | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times vminnm.f32\ts[0-9]+, > s[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 1 > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c scan-assembler-times vmaxnm.f32\ts[0-9]+, > s[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 1 > > Used configuration : > *CI config* tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc master-arm > *configure and test flags:* --target arm-linux-gnueabihf > > We track this bug report under https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1553. > Please let us know if you have a fix. > > If you have any questions regarding this report, please ask on > linaro-toolch...@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_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1998/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ > The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make > commands are in > * > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1998/artifact/artifacts/notify/ > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > * > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1998/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1998/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1997/artifact/artifacts > > Instruction to reproduce the build : > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/b631ff45f231db55b28b4c92cf1a1b46b3638ddd/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=b631ff45f231db55b28b4c92cf1a1b46b3638ddd
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-8035-g7ee31bc9276: 2 regressions on master-thumb_m23_soft_eabi
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 22:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 14:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 09:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 17 March 2025, Christophe Lyon > > > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 at 21:54, Jonathan Wakely > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 at 13:16, wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > Dear contributor, > > > >> > > > > >> > Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). > > > >> > Please find some details below. > > > >> > > > > >> > In arm-eabi cortex-m23 soft, after: > > > >> > | commit gcc-15-8035-g7ee31bc9276 > > > >> > | Author: Jonathan Wakely > > > >> > | Date: Thu Mar 13 13:34:55 2025 + > > > >> > | > > > >> > | libstdc++: Implement for C++26 (P3370R1) > > > >> > | > > > >> > | This is the first part of the P3370R1 proposal just approved > > > >> > by the > > > >> > | committee in Wrocław. This adds C++ equivalents of the > > > >> > functions added > > > >> > | to C23 by WG14 N3022. > > > >> > | ... 16 lines of the commit log omitted. > > > >> > > > > >> > Produces 2 regressions: > > > >> > | > > > >> > | regressions.sum: > > > >> > | Running libstdc++:libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ... > > > >> > | FAIL: 20_util/stdbit/1.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors) > > > >> > | UNRESOLVED: 20_util/stdbit/1.cc -std=gnu++26 compilation failed > > > >> > to produce executable > > > >> > > > > >> > Used configuration : > > > >> > *CI config* tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc arm-eabi -mthumb > > > >> > -march=armv8-m.base -mtune=cortex-m23 -mfloat-abi=soft -mfpu=auto > > > >> > *configure and test flags:* --target arm-eabi --disable-multilib > > > >> > --with-mode=thumb --with-cpu=cortex-m23 --with-float=soft > > > >> > --target_board=-mthumb/-march=armv8-m.base/-mtune=cortex-m23/-mfloat-abi=soft/-mfpu=auto > > > >> > qemu_cpu=cortex-m33 > > > >> > > > > >> > We track this bug report under > > > >> > https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1543. Please let us know if > > > >> > you have a fix. > > > >> > > > >> All the errors are of the form: > > > >> error: 'ULLONG_MAX' was not declared in this scope > > > >> but the test includes . > > > >> > > > >> So this target doesn't support long long? Or just doesn't define > > > >> ULLONG_MAX? > > > >> > > > > > > > > It does... > > > > > > > > I've manually reproduced it, and ISTM the problem is __STDC_VERSION__ > > > > is not defined, > > > > as gcc/glimits.h expects: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/glimits.h;h=d5877602bf741383cfddb13236fbba1cf0b5b520;hb=HEAD#l102 > > > > > > > > > Aha! Thanks. > > > > > > > Compiling > > > > == > > > > #include > > > > unsigned long long var = ULLONG_MAX; > > > > > > > > works with the same compiler, in C mode. > > > > > > > > But why would that work on arm-linux-gnueabihf and not on arm-none-eabi? > > > > > > I think glimits.h use only used if libc doesn't provide one, and I guess > > > glibc's limits.h is used for gnueabihf > > > > > > The C++ standard says it's implementation-defined whether > > > __STDC_VERSION__ is defined by a C++ compiler, and if defined, it's > > > implementation-defined what is value is > > > > > > GCC/glimits.h should check || (defined(__cplusplus) && __cplusplus >= > > > 201103L)) > > > > > > i.e. long long should be supported for C++11 and later. > > > > > > Libstdc++ actually assumes long long is always supported even for C++98 > > > so I'm surprised we've never noticed this before! I think we probably use > > > the type without using the LLONG_MAX macro, so it just happens to work. > > > > > > I can adjust the test to be agnostic to that macro, but I'll also propose > > > a patch to check __cplusplus in glimits.h > > > > > > Thanks again for finding the cause here. > > > > Hmm, except that libstdc++ provides which should add > > ULLONG_MAX if it's not defined by libc: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/tree/libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/climits > > And should find the libstdc++ version which includes > > ., but we're not installing the libstdc++ version of > > . > > That's a libstdc++ bug. > > The FAIL for arm-none-eabi should be fixed at r15-8450-g562416d8131dc9 Indeed, thanks! > > I'll deal with the libstdc++ bug in stage 1. > Thanks, Christophe
Regressions on master at commit r15-8455 vs commit r15-8451 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-8455 vs commit r15-8451 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
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-9030-g78e0cf06c81: 5 regressions 4 improvements on master-thumb_m33_hard_eabi
ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > Dear contributor, > > Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find > some details below. > > In arm-eabi cortex-m33 hard, after: > | commit gcc-15-9030-g78e0cf06c81 > | Author: Sam James > | Date: Sat Mar 29 21:09:25 2025 + > | > | testsuite: arm: fixup more dg-final syntax > | > | ... as Richard E mentioned on the ML. Followup to > r15-8956-ge90d6c2639c392. > | > | gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > | ... 2 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Produces 5 regressions 4 improvements: > | > | regressions.sum: > | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > sxth\\tr[0-9]+,r[0-9]+ 2 > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > vcvt\\.f32\\.s32\\ts[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > vcvt\\.s32\\.f32\\ts[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > vmov\\tr[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > | ... and 1 more This one may need an ARM person to take a look at. (The issue was latent, and the test wasn't being run fully before.)
Regressions on master at commit r15-8933 vs commit r15-8930 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-8933 vs commit r15-8930 on Linux/x86_64 New failures: FAIL: 25_algorithms/stable_sort/constexpr.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors) FAIL: 25_algorithms/stable_sort/constexpr.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess errors) New passes: FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/append-args-interop.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/append-args-interop.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Regressions on native/releases/gcc-14 at commit r14-11488 vs commit r14-11483 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on releases/gcc-14 at commit r14-11488 vs commit r14-11483 on Linux/x86_64 New failures: FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/bitfield_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/fd_pipe_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/mutexset1.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/race_on_barrier2.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/race_on_barrier.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/race_on_mutex2.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-s317.c execution test FAIL: libgomp.c++/../libgomp.c-c++-common/for-5.c execution test New passes: FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/bitfield_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/free_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/pr65400-3.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/pr68260.c -O0 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/race_on_barrier2.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/volatile.c -O0 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/volatile.c -O2 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/write_in_reader_lock.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/vptr_benign_race.C -O0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/vptr_harmful_race.C -O0 output pattern test FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/vptr_harmful_race.C -O2 output pattern test
Regressions on native/releases/gcc-13 at commit r13-9489 vs commit r13-9488 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on releases/gcc-13 at commit r13-9489 vs commit r13-9488 on Linux/x86_64 New failures: New passes: FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_stack.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/simple_stack.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak2.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak2.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak.c -O0 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/tiny_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/tiny_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/tls_race.c -O0 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/tls_race.c -O2 output pattern test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/volatile.c -O0 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/volatile.c -O2 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O0 execution test
Regressions on native/master at commit r15-8963 vs commit r15-8959 on Linux/x86_64
Regressions on master at commit r15-8963 vs commit r15-8959 on Linux/x86_64
New failures:
New passes:
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++17 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++17 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++26 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++26 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/strub-internal-pr112938.C -std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump-times
optimized "={v} \\*j_[0-9][0-9]*(D)" 2
