Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2360-gdab0f35fcb4d: Failure on arm
Hi Jason, The regression is ... === g++ tests === Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: g++.dg/abi/arm_rtti1.C -std=gnu++26 scan-assembler _ZNKSt9type_infoeqERKS_ It wasn't included in the report due to typo in the scripts. Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Jul 28, 2024, at 05:55, 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 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 > the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1300 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-15-2360-gdab0f35fcb4d > | Author: Jason Merrill > | Date: Fri Jul 26 15:10:50 2024 -0400 > | > | c++: improve C++ testsuite default versions > | > | I wanted to add more cases to the setting of std_list in g++-dg.exp, > but > | didn't want to do a full scan through the file for each case. So this > patch > | improves that in two ways: first, by extracting all interesting lines > on a > | single pass; second, by generating the list more flexibly: now we test > every > | version mentioned explicitly in the testcase, plus a few more if fewer > than > | ... 12 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > # 1 regressions > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -8<--8<--8<-- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2468/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2466/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/dab0f35fcb4dd3ba584422013096c4ebc6bff90d/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/dab0f35fcb4dd3ba584422013096c4ebc6bff90d > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** Failure > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/dab0f35fcb4dd3ba584422013096c4ebc6bff90d/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2468/artifact/artifacts
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2233-g8d1af8f904a: Failure on arm
Hi Andi, The regression is ... === g++ tests === Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: c-c++-common/musttail12.c -std=c++20 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/musttail6.C (test for excess errors) It wasn't included in the report due to typo in the scripts. Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Jul 26, 2024, at 19:38, 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 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 > the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1299 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-15-2233-g8d1af8f904a > | Author: Andi Kleen > | Date: Tue Jan 23 23:54:56 2024 -0800 > | > | Add tests for C/C++ musttail attributes > | > | Some adopted from the existing C musttail plugin tests. > | Also extends the ability to query the sibcall capabilities of the > | target. > | > | gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > | ... 16 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > # 4 regressions > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -8<--8<--8<-- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2460/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2459/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/8d1af8f904a0c08656d976cbf8ca56dba35197b0/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/8d1af8f904a0c08656d976cbf8ca56dba35197b0 > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** Failure > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/8d1af8f904a0c08656d976cbf8ca56dba35197b0/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2460/artifact/artifacts
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2362-ga9e9f772c748: Failure on arm
Hi Jason, For this one the regressions are: === g++ tests === Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-prop21.C -std=c++20 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-prop21.C -std=c++23 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-prop21.C -std=c++26 (test for excess errors) -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Jul 28, 2024, at 09:28, 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 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 > the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1301 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-15-2362-ga9e9f772c748 > | Author: Jason Merrill > | Date: Fri Jul 26 17:20:18 2024 -0400 > | > | c++: consteval propagation and templates [PR115986] > | > | Here the call to e() makes us decide to check d() for escalation at > EOF, but > | while checking it we try to fold_immediate 0_c, and get confused by the > | template trees. Let's not mess with escalation for function templates. > | > | PR c++/115986 > | ... 9 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > # 3 regressions > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -8<--8<--8<-- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2472/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2471/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/a9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab939771a/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/a9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab939771a > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** Failure > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/a9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab939771a/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2472/artifact/artifacts
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-8492-g1a8261e047f: FAIL: 3 regressions on arm
> On Jan 30, 2024, at 00:35, ci_notify--- via Gcc-regression > wrote: > > 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 > the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1132 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-14-8492-g1a8261e047f > | Author: Richard Sandiford > | Date: Mon Jan 29 12:33:08 2024 + > | > | vect: Tighten vect_determine_precisions_from_range [PR113281] > | > | This was another PR caused by the way that > | vect_determine_precisions_from_range handles shifts. We tried to > | narrow 32768 >> x to a 16-bit shift based on range information for > | the inputs and outputs, with vect_recog_over_widening_pattern > | (after PR110828) adjusting the shift amount. But this doesn't > | ... 36 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 3 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/simd/simd.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vshr.c scan-assembler-times > vneg.s[0-9]+\\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 6 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vshr.c scan-assembler-times > vshl.s[0-9]+\\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 3 > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/simd/mve-vshr.c scan-assembler-times > vshl.u[0-9]+\\tq[0-9]+, q[0-9]+ 3 Hi Richard, Could you please check whether the above tests need an update after your patch? We see these tests now consistently failing across all 32-bit ARM configurations that we track (see [1]). As an example, our configure options for arm-linux-gnueabihf that show the failure are at [2]. [1] https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1132 [2] https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/artifacts/notify/configure-make.txt/*view*/ Thanks! -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > > === Results Summary === > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1636/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ > . > The full lists of regressions and progressions are in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1636/artifact/artifacts/notify/ > . > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1636/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > . > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -8<--8<--8<-- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1636/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1635/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/1a8261e047f7a2c2b0afb95716f7615cba718cd1/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/1a8261e047f7a2c2b0afb95716f7615cba718cd1 > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** FAIL: 3 regressions > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/1a8261e047f7a2c2b0afb95716f7615cba718cd1/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1636/artifact/artifacts
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-8680-g2f14c0dbb78: FAIL: 3 regressions on arm
> On Feb 1, 2024, at 16:07, ci_notify--- via Gcc-regression > wrote: > > 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 > the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1140 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-14-8680-g2f14c0dbb78 > | Author: Roger Sayle > | Date: Thu Feb 1 06:10:42 2024 + > | > | PR target/113560: Enhance is_widening_mult_rhs_p. > | > | This patch resolves PR113560, a code quality regression from GCC12 > | affecting x86_64, by enhancing the middle-end's tree-ssa-math-opts.cc > | to recognize more instances of widening multiplications. > | > | The widening multiplication perception code identifies cases like: > | ... 116 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 3 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/wmul-5.c scan-assembler umlal > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/wmul-6.c scan-assembler smlalbb > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/wmul-7.c scan-assembler umlal Hi Roger, Your patch seems to regress the above 3 tests for all 32-bit ARM targets (see [1]). Would you please check if the regressions can be avoided? For reference, here are configure options we use for arm-linux-gnueabihf cross-toolchain: [2]. [1] https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1140 [2] https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm-build/1303/artifact/artifacts/notify/configure-make.txt/*view*/ Thanks! -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1650/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make > commands are in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1650/artifact/artifacts/notify/ > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1650/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -8<--8<--8<-- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1650/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1649/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/2f14c0dbb789852947cb58fdf7d3162413f053fa/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/2f14c0dbb789852947cb58fdf7d3162413f053fa > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gcc_check > ** master-arm > *** FAIL: 3 regressions > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/2f14c0dbb789852947cb58fdf7d3162413f053fa/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1650/artifact/artifacts
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-1500-g1340ddea015: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm
Hi Matthias,
Looking at [1], we are seeing this error only for bare-metal 32-bit ARM target,
which, I believe, is not a configuration that compiler explorer supports. The
specific configurations are either soft-float, or target ARM cores without NEON
(aka no SIMD FPU).
Maybe the test should be guarded on the target supporting vectorization? I.e.,
maybe add
// { dg-require-effective-target vect_int }
?
[1] https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1265
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org
> On Jun 21, 2024, at 19:03, Matthias Kretz via Gcc-regression
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I looked into this and still don't understand how to reproduce it.
>
> The issue as logged in libstdc++.log is a call from
> find_last_set(simd_mask>) to
> _MaskImplNeonMixin::_S_to_bits, which calls vpadd_s32 with two
> [[gnu::vector_size(8)]] int arguments. The CI compiler complains "error:
> cannot convert '__vector(2) int' to 'int32x2_t'".
>
> Why is that an error on your side and not on any compiler I have at hand?
>
> https://compiler-explorer.com/z/88WhcM7Kb not an error here.
>
> In any case, the new test only exposes an existing issue in the simd> implementation (or its interaction with some variants of GCC?). The
> change did not introduce a new bug to libstdc++.
>
> Best,
> Matthias
>
>
> On Friday, 21 June 2024 17:00:23 GMT+2 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 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 the usual project channel.
>>
>> We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or
>> reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI
>> within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help.
>>
>> We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1265
>> , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have
>> a fix.
>> In arm-eabi v7-a softfp after:
>> | commit gcc-15-1500-g1340ddea015
>> | Author: Matthias Kretz
>> | Date: Fri Jun 14 15:11:25 2024 +0200
>> |
>> | libstdc++: Fix find_last_set(simd_mask) to ignore padding bits
>> |
>> | With the change to the AVX512 find_last_set implementation, the
>> | change
>> | to AVX512 operator!= is unnecessary. However, the latter was not
>> | producing optimal code and unnecessarily set the padding bits. In
>> | theory, the compiler could determine that with the new !=
>> | implementation, the bit operation for clearing the padding bits is a
>> |
>> | ... 13 lines of the commit log omitted.
>>
>> FAIL: 2 regressions
>>
>> regressions.sum:
>> === libstdc++ tests ===
>>
>> Running libstdc++:libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ...
>> FAIL: experimental/simd/pr115454_find_last_set.cc -mfpu=neon -ffast-math -O2
>> -Wno-psabi (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED:
>> experimental/simd/pr115454_find_last_set.cc -mfpu=neon -ffast-math -O2
>> -Wno-psabi compilation failed to produce executable
>>
>>
>> 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_e
>> abi-build/512/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ The full lists of regressions
>> and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in -
>> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_e
>> abi-build/512/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_e
>> abi-build/512/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail
>>
>> The configuration of this build is:
>> CI config tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc arm-eabi -marm -march=armv7-a
>> -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=softfp
>>
>> -8<--8<--8<-
>> - The information below can be used to reproduce a
>> debug environment:
>>
>> Current build :
>> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_e
>> abi-build/512/artifact/artifacts Reference build :
>> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc--master-arm_v7a_softfp_e
>> abi-build/511/artifact/artifacts
>>
>> Reproduce last good and first bad builds:
>> https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh
>> a1/1340ddea0158de3f49aeb75b4013e5fc313ff6f4/tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc/master-
>> arm_v7a_softfp_eabi/reproduction_instructions.txt
>>
>> Full commit :
>> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/1340ddea0158de3f49aeb75b4013e5fc31
>> 3ff6f4
>>
>> List of configurations that regressed due to this commit :
>> * tcwg_gnu_embed_check_gcc
>> ** master-arm_v7a_softfp_eabi
>> *** FAIL: 2 regressions
>> ***
>> https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4672-gdf4af89bc3e: Failure on arm
> On Oct 27, 2024, at 20:40, Li, Pan2 wrote: > > I see, this error may require bootstrap build. There is no aarch64 machine > currently. Let me try to find one somewhere. > You could use one of aarch64 machines in GCC's compiler farm. If that doesn't work -- send me a private email and I'll create a docker container for you on one of Linaro machines. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > Pan > > -Original Message- > From: Sam James > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 3:37 PM > To: Li, Pan2 > Cc: gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org; jeffreya...@gmail.com; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; > kito.ch...@gmail.com; linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org; > rd...@ventanamicro.com > Subject: RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4672-gdf4af89bc3e: Failure on arm > > It's not possible to do a profiledbootstrap via cross. It might be > possible for the Linaro CI to extract the bad preprocessed source and > share the options used to build it (options at least should be in the > log) but that won't help if the compiler is miscompiled... > ___ > linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3607-g9a94c8ffdc8b: FAIL: 23 regressions: 22 improvements on master-thumb_m23_soft_eabi
> 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 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 >> the usual project channel. >> We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or >> reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI >> within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. >> We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1349 >> , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have >> a fix. >> In arm-eabi cortex-m23 soft after: >> | commit gcc-15-3607-g9a94c8ffdc8b >> | Author: Richard Earnshaw >> | Date: Thu Sep 12 14:24:55 2024 +0100 >> | >> | arm: testsuite: make use of -mcpu=unset/-march=unset >> | >> | This patch makes use of the new ability to unset the CPU or >> | architecture flags on the command line to enable several more tests >> on >> | Arm. It doesn't cover every case and it does enable some tests that >> | now fail for different reasons when the tests are no-longer skipped; >> | these were failing anyway for other testsuite configurations, so it's >> | ... 22 lines of the commit log omitted. >> FAIL: 23 regressions: 22 improvements >> regressions.sum: >> === gcc tests === >> Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/scd42-2.c scan-assembler mov[ \t].*272 >> Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse.exp ... >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler >> lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> ... and 19 more entries >> improvements.sum: >> === gcc tests === >> Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse.exp ... >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler >> lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler >> lsls\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-6.c >> -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O3 -g scan-assembler >> lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 >> ... and 16 more entries > > I can't make any sense of this at all. After hours wasted trying to find the > configuration information from the logs (it's there, but to the inexperienced > user of your reports, it is buried far too deep), I'm still none-the-wiser. Hi Richard, Thanks for looking into this. Do send us a quick email if you can't immideatelly find what you are looking for. As our email says "We understand that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help." Regarding adding configure information to our reports -- we are working on it. > All I can see is that things like > > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp > -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > > have changed to > > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/8_1m/bitfield-4.c -mcpu=unset > -march=armv8.1-m.main+fp -mthumb -O2 scan-assembler > lsrs\t(r[3-9]|r10|fp|ip), \\1, #1.*blxns\t\\1 > > (ie that -mcpu=unset has been added to the test name). > > That's not a regression, it's a simple FAIL->FAIL Yes, that's correct. Unfor
