Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2414-g2d105efd6f60: FAIL: 3 regressions on aarch64
ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > 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-1305 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-aarch64 after: > > | commit gcc-15-2414-g2d105efd6f60 > | Author: Sam James > | Date: Tue Jul 30 17:10:01 2024 +0100 > | > | testsuite: fix whitespace in dg-do assemble directive > | > | * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c: Fix whitespace in dg > directive. > > FAIL: 3 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.target/aarch64/simd/simd.exp ... > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c scan-assembler-times > \\tsmmla\\tv[0-9]+.4s, v[0-9]+.16b, v[0-9]+.16b 1 > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c scan-assembler-times > \\tummla\\tv[0-9]+.4s, v[0-9]+.16b, v[0-9]+.16b 1 > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vmmla.c scan-assembler-times > \\tusmmla\\tv[0-9]+.4s, v[0-9]+.16b, v[0-9]+.16b 1 > [...] Thanks. The test has been broken since it was added. Filed https://gcc.gnu.org/PR116207.
Re: gcc-regression script build fail info
"Jiang, Haochen" writes:
> Ping for this thread.
>
> Any ideas? If no, I will change the generated info with command following
> if we take r15-1643 as example and see if it is clearer:
>
> head -26 makelog.r15-1643.x86_64.native | tail -7 > 1.log;
> grep -E "(error:|Error)" makelog.r15-1643.x86_64.native >> 1.log;
> echo " Detailed Info around error (+- 10 Lines)
> " >> 1.log;
> grep -C 10 -E "error:" makelog.r15-1643.x86_64.native >> 1.log;
>
This plan sounds good to me, although I was hoping someone might speak
up ;)
I will keep an eye on the failures afterwards and then see if it looks
OK too.
(Sorry if you were waiting on me, I may have misunderstood.)
> Thx,
> Haochen
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jiang, Haochen
>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:57 PM
>> To: 'Sam James'
>> Cc: 'gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc-
>> testresu...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'g...@gcc.gnu.org'
>>
>> Subject: RE: gcc-regression script build fail info
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Jiang, Haochen
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:46 PM
>> > To: 'Sam James'
>> > Cc: 'gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc-
>> > testresu...@gcc.gnu.org' ; g...@gcc.gnu.org
>> > Subject: gcc-regression script build fail info
>> >
>> > > > For future reports, would it be possible to change the grep to
>> > > > something
>> > > > like:
>> > > >
>> > > > grep -E "(error:|Error)" or just grep -rsin "error" -w or something.
>> > > >
>> > > > This would allow catching the actual compile error in libbacktrace
>> > > > if it's not going to fit in the last N lines from make.
>> > >
>> > > Hi Sam,
>> > >
>> > > Let me change that in the script and see if it is much clearer.
>> > >
>> > > This bug report definitely seems not clear for me also.
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Sam just mentioned in another thread that the current log for build fail in
>> gcc-
>> > regression is not clear at all, like the problem in:
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2024-July/080272.html
>> > The 100 bottom line didn't give any info for why it runs into a build fail.
>> >
>> > As Sam suggested, we might change the build fail info part which is
>> > currently
>> > using 'tail -100' to 'grep -E "(error:|Error)"' to get some clear info.
>> >
>> > Does any one still needs the 'tail -100' for some more info? Or if the
>> > output
>> for
>> > 'grep -E "(error:|Error)" is enough?
>> >
>> > For example, for r15-2116, overall report will be:
>>
>> Made a typo here, the report is generated from r15-1643.
>>
>> >
>> > make[2]: Entering directory '/home/haochenj/src/gcc-regression'
>> > rm -rf bld
>> > mkdir -p bld
>> > cd bld; \
>> > RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}'" ../src-master/configure \
>> > --with-arch=native --with-cpu=native --enable-clocale=gnu --with-
>> system-
>> > zlib --enable-shared --enable-cet --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-libmpx --
>> > prefix=/usr/gcc-15.0.0 --with-fpmath=sse checking build system type...
>> > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
>> > grep "Error " makelog.r15-1643.x86_64.native >> makelog.r15-
>> > 1643.x86_64.native.mail; \
>> > make[6]: [Makefile:1832: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/largefile-config.h] Error
>> 1
>> > (ignored)
>> > make[6]: [Makefile:1831: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/largefile-config.h] Error
>> 1
>> > (ignored)
>> > make[6]: [Makefile:1832: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/largefile-config.h] Error
>> 1
>> > (ignored)
>> > ../../src-master/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:107:12: error: 'rtx_def*
>> > legitimize_dllimport_symbol(rtx, bool)' declared 'static' but never
>> > defined [-
>> > Werror=unused-function]
>> > ../../src-master/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:108:12: error: 'rtx_def*
>> > legitimize_pe_coff_extern_decl(rtx, bool)' declared 'static' but never
>> > defined
>> [-
>> > Werror=unused-function]
>> > make[6]: *** [Makefile:2557: i386.o] Error 1
>> > make[5]: *** [Makefile:5108: all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
>> > make[4]: *** [Makefile:30031: stage2-bubble] Error 2
>> > make[3]: *** [Makefile:30275: bootstrap] Error 2
>> > make[2]: *** [Makefile:313: bootstrap] Error 2
>> > make[1]: *** [Makefile:409: one] Error 1
>> > make: *** [Makefile:406: one-master] Error 2
>> >
>> > Thx,
>> > Haochen
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thx,
>> > > Haochen
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > (Not needed here as ILT already fixed the issue on master).
>> > > >
>> > > > thanks,
>> > > > sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: master branch: commit r15-2116 failed to bootstrap on Linux/x86_64 (commit r15-2111 builds)!
Hi! For future reports, would it be possible to change the grep to something like: grep -E "(error:|Error)" or just grep -rsin "error" -w or something. This would allow catching the actual compile error in libbacktrace if it's not going to fit in the last N lines from make. (Not needed here as ILT already fixed the issue on master). thanks, sam
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2165-g01c095ab77f8: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr116003.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:4:1:
sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(5)' is not supported on this target
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:8:1:
sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(129)' is not supported on this target
/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr116003.c:11:5:
sorry, unimplemented: '_BitInt(128)' is not supported on this target
I think it needs dg-do compile { target bitint }.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4377-gf9bac2388401: Failure on aarch64
This is https://gcc.gnu.org/PR117177 which has a patch posted by Jakub already at https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ZxArjATvc%2FnI6YiO@tucnak/.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4685-g091e45b4e97d: FAIL: 1 regressions: 23 improvements on aarch64
Christophe Lyon writes: > On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 at 14:17, Sam James via Gcc-regression > wrote: >> >> ci_not...@linaro.org writes: >> >> > 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-1388 , please let us know if you >> > are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. >> >> Should be fixed with r15-4692-g40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90. >> > Thanks for the feedback. > So now it's an "assemble" only test, rather than a "(LTO) link" one? > Yes. What I'm doing (and have been doing the last few months) is finding tests which were never being run and fixing them up. In this case, I found a bunch of tests in lto/ which were being ignored because their filename was wrong. I missed that the tbaa test was broken when comparing results at first after I'd renamed it and made some initial fixes. In the end, there were a few problems left: * when doing a "proper LTO" test, the needed dump isn't available (so moved to be an assemble + LTO test); * the scan fails when the dump needed is actually possible, so I XFAIL'd and filed a bug for Honza to look at (PR117299). thanks, sam
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...
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4685-g091e45b4e97d: FAIL: 1 regressions: 23 improvements on aarch64
ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > 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-1388 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. Should be fixed with r15-4692-g40fedaf35fa99a9728d5b84d47035f4c92e1ba90. thanks, sam
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4672-gdf4af89bc3e: Failure on arm
"Li, Pan2" writes: > No response from the compiler farm. > > But due to some more discussion for the simplification on SAT, this patch is > reverted. Thus I bet this build error should be gone > up to a point. Please feel free to ping me if any issues. Take Maxim up on their offer, I think? It's possible the issue is latent so worth looking into nonetheless. > > Pan > > -Original Message- > From: Li, Pan2 > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 4:07 PM > To: 'Maxim Kuvyrkov' > Cc: 'Sam James' ; 'gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org' > ; 'Jeff Law' ; > 'juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai' ; 'kito.ch...@gmail.com' > ; 'Linaro ToolChain' > ; 'rd...@ventanamicro.com' > > Subject: RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4672-gdf4af89bc3e: Failure on arm > > The docker multi-isa doesn't work well here, I will apply an account from > compiler farm... > > Pan > > -Original Message- > From: Li, Pan2 > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 9:32 AM > To: Maxim Kuvyrkov > Cc: Sam James ; gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org; Jeff Law > ; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; > Linaro ToolChain ; > rd...@ventanamicro.com > Subject: RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-4672-gdf4af89bc3e: Failure on arm > > Thanks, let me have a try first and will back to you if still cannot > reproduce this. > > Pan > > -Original Message- > From: Maxim Kuvyrkov > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 7:39 AM > To: Li, Pan2 > Cc: Sam James ; gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org; Jeff Law > ; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; > Linaro ToolChain ; > rd...@ventanamicro.com > Subject: 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.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-3899-g819098dc71f2: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements on aarch64
ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > 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-1356 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. > > In gcc_check master-aarch64 after: > > | commit gcc-15-3899-g819098dc71f2 > | Author: Sam James > | Date: Thu Sep 26 15:43:33 2024 +0100 > | > | testsuite: XFAIL gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 properly > | > | The test was disabled/XFAIL'd informally in r0-100012-gcdc6637d7c78ec, > | but r15-3890-g34bf6aa41ba539 didn't realize this, causing a FAIL. > | > | ... 7 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 improvements > Thanks, this is PR116858 and I'll handle it today or tomorrow at the latest. > regressions.sum: > | === gfortran tests === > | > | Running gfortran:gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > | FAIL: gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 -O xfail *-*-* (test for > errors, line 11) > | > | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of > the binary differs from the expected one > > improvements.sum: > | === gfortran tests === > | > | Running gfortran:gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > | FAIL: gfortran.dg/initialization_25.f90 -O (test for errors, line 11) > | > | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of > the binary differs from the expected one > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > * > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/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_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifact/artifacts/notify/ > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > * > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2668/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-aarch64 > > -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-aarch64-build/2668/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2667/artifact/artifacts > > Instruction to reproduce the build : > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/819098dc71f2079aedc15a904ab5f17f0788d991/tcwg_gcc_check/master-aarch64/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/819098dc71f2079aedc15a904ab5f17f0788d991
Re: Regressions on native/master at commit r15-3869 vs commit r15-3857 on Linux/x86_64
I filed PR116845 for this.
Re: [r15-5359 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr109442.C -std=gnu++26 scan-tree-dump-not optimized "_M_start" on Linux/x86_64
I think this testcase was accidentally included in r15-5359-gcc33f880e553d1 but this problem can be ignored, as it is now fixed by r15-5361-gaac5c57ee16723. (TL;DR: just a git snafu and the problem is resolved AFAICT.)
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-5255-g7828dc070510: 33 regressions on arm
This is https://sourceware.org/PR32366.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-6774-g740c84975ceb: Failure on arm
This is definitely https://gcc.gnu.org/PR118409 (indeed the ifcombine change). We had PR118417 too which I suspect is the same.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-6566-g804e9d55d9e: 5 regressions on arm
This is being worked on at https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/328b6145af0d5c1d2c3fc5ef44cb7b747173d021.1736478704.git@gentoo.org/. See also https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/fcdbc863-3ad7-de56-6076-85948d030...@redhat.com/. thanks, sam
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.)
Re: Regressions on native/master at commit r16-29 vs commit r16-21 on Linux/x86_64
This builder uses --with-arch=native. The (a) difference starts at x86-64-v3:
$ diff -u <(gcc -O2 -fdump-tree-forwprop1-details=- -O2 gcc.dg/pr78408-3.c -c
-march=x86-64-v2) <(gcc -O2 -fdump-tree-forwprop1-details=- -O2
gcc.dg/pr78408-3.c -c -march=x86-64-v3)
--- /dev/fd/63 2025-04-19 01:27:31.676852279 +0100
+++ /dev/fd/62 2025-04-19 01:27:31.651851999 +0100
@@ -1,15 +1,17 @@
-;; Function bbb (bbb, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=2939, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
+;; Function bbb (bbb, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=3312, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
void * bbb ()
{
char buf[32];
void * ret;
+ vector(32) unsigned char _5;
:
ret_3 = aaa ();
buf = "";
- MEM [(char * {ref-all})ret_3] = MEM
[(char * {ref-all})&buf];
+ _5 = MEM [(char * {ref-all})&buf];
+ MEM [(char * {ref-all})ret_3] = _5;
buf ={v} {CLOBBER(eos)};
return ret_3;
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-16-372-g064cac730f8: 18 regressions on aarch64
See PR119930, PR120098, PR120101, PR120099.
Re: [r15-9427 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/pr119530.c execution test on Linux/x86_64
"haochen.jiang" writes:
> On Linux/x86_64,
>
> de1c734a8ae034c92f485e7f58b7fcb1c921ecd2 is the first bad commit
> commit de1c734a8ae034c92f485e7f58b7fcb1c921ecd2
> Author: Martin Jambor
> Date: Mon Apr 14 14:21:15 2025 +0200
>
> ipa-cp: Make propagation of bits in IPA-CP aware of type conversions
> (PR119318)
>
> caused
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/pr119530.c execution test
Fixed by r15-9459-gebdf92b6067a35.
>
> with GCC configured with
>
> ../../gcc/configure
> --prefix=/export/users/haochenj/src/gcc-bisect/master/master/r15-9427/usr
> --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld
> --with-fpmath=sse --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-cet
> --without-isl --enable-libmpx x86_64-linux --disable-bootstrap
>
> To reproduce:
>
> $ cd {build_dir}/gcc && make check
> RUNTESTFLAGS="ipa.exp=gcc.dg/ipa/pr119530.c --target_board='unix{-m32}'"
> $ cd {build_dir}/gcc && make check
> RUNTESTFLAGS="ipa.exp=gcc.dg/ipa/pr119530.c --target_board='unix{-m32\
> -march=cascadelake}'"
>
> (Please do not reply to this email, for question about this report, contact
> me at haochen dot jiang at intel.com.)
> (If you met problems with cascadelake related, disabling AVX512F in command
> line might save that.)
> (However, please make sure that there is no potential problems with AVX512.)
Re: [r15-7532 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr118763.C -Os execution test on Linux/x86_64
"haochen.jiang" writes: > On Linux/x86_64, > > e96e1bb69c7b46db18e747ee379a62681bc8c82d is the first bad commit > commit e96e1bb69c7b46db18e747ee379a62681bc8c82d > Author: Jason Merrill > Date: Fri Feb 14 10:53:01 2025 +0100 > > c++: extended temp cleanups [PR118856] > > caused > > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr118763.C -O0 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr118763.C -O1 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr118763.C -Os execution test > > with GCC configured with > > ../../gcc/configure > --prefix=/export/users/haochenj/src/gcc-bisect/master/master/r15-7532/usr > --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld > --with-fpmath=sse --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-cet > --without-isl --enable-libmpx x86_64-linux --disable-bootstrap I see it too. I've filed PR118905. Thanks.
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-8956-ge90d6c2639c: 8 regressions on aarch64
ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > Dear contributor, > > Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find > some details below. > > In gcc_check master-aarch64, after: > | commit gcc-15-8956-ge90d6c2639c > | Author: Sam James > | Date: Thu Mar 27 00:21:43 2025 + > | > | testsuite: more (mostly cosmetic) dg- whitespace fixes > | > | Some of these are harmless but still inconsistent (and asking for > trouble > | given it may give people the wrong idea about similar "style"). > | > | ... 9 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Produces 8 regressions: > | > | regressions.sum: > | Running gcc:gcc.target/aarch64/aarch64.exp ... > | ERROR: tcl error code NONE > | ERROR: tcl error sourcing gcc.target/aarch64/aarch64.exp. > | UNRESOLVED: testcase gcc.target/aarch64/aarch64.exp' aborted due to Tcl > error > | ERROR: unmatched open brace in list > | ... and 5 more Should be fixed with r15-8981-g176c7a2f751e04, thanks!
