Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #109371: 5 regressions on aarch64
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:58:18 + (UTC), ci notify said: > ... > In gdb_check master-aarch64, after: > | gdb patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/109371 > ... > Used configuration : > *CI config* tcwg_gdb_check master-aarch64 > *configure and test flags:* none, autodetected on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu > > 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_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/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_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/ > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > * > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-build/2461/artifact/artifacts In https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/4627/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/00-sumfiles/gdb.log.1.xz it appears that the "info set" test started at line 1159 and failed with FAIL: gdb.base/default.exp: info set (timeout) at line 1533. Then a few more tests failed with timeout and finally over 100 tests failed with no obvious reason. Was this caused by a problem on the CI machine? ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #109240: 2 regressions 2 improvements on arm
On 31/03/2025 11:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 11:56, Christophe Lyon > wrote: >> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 22:07, 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 >>> | Date: Wed Mar 26 17:19:11 2025 + >>> | >>> | [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. No, it was just very slow sending this report out. Part of the reason this was missed in my initial testing was because the test was a hybrid test - scan assembler + executable requiring specific hardware. This means the scan assembler is only run on targets where we have that hardware available, making the test far less useful than it could be. >> >> You've committed your patch by now anyway, just mentioning in case you >> are confused. I've responded to the other report (on the committed version). Fixed with r15-9064-gf30e180194bfbc R. >> >> 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. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-21-init-6480-g529c5b71c608: 3 regressions 2 improvements on aarch64
Hi, I asked my colleagues (@kasuga-fj and @ytmukai). They said these errors seem to be a bug in the MachinePipeliner and they are working on a fix with the community. You can forget this issue. Thanks. Best regards, Takahiro Kawashima, Fujitsu > Hi, > > Thank you for investigation. > > I have a colleague who is working on the machine pipeliner. I'll ask him. > > Regards, > Takahiro Kawashima, > Fujitsu > > > > It is caused by enabling the slp-vectorizer pass. > > > Failing tests are the following. > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/fujitsu/compiler-test-suite/blob/main/Fortran/0105/0105_0223.f90 > > > > > > https://github.com/fujitsu/compiler-test-suite/blob/main/Fortran/0631/0631_0051.f > > > > > > https://github.com/fujitsu/compiler-test-suite/blob/main/Fortran/0631/0631_0054.f > > > > > > Compiler flags are the following. > > > > > > flang -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v1 -msve-vector-bits=scalable -mllvm > > > -scalable-vectorization=preferred -mllvm > > > -treat-scalable-fixed-error-as-warning=false -mllvm > > > -aarch64-enable-pipeliner -mllvm -pipeliner-mve-cg -DNDEBUG -fstack-arrays > > > > > > 0631_0051.f and 0631_0054.f seem to fail by miscompiling. Output of ot > > > test execution differs form the expected one. > > > > > > 0105_0223.f90 fails by an assertion failure in the backend. > > > > > > flang: llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/SlotIndexes.h:626: void > > > llvm::SlotIndexes::insertMBBInMaps(llvm::MachineBasicBlock*): Assertion > > > `unsigned(mbb->getNumber()) == MBBRanges.size() && "Blocks must be added > > > in order"' failed. > > > > Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I was able to reproduce > > the issue in my own > > environment as well. It appears that it's the combination of "-mllvm > > -aarch64-enable-pipeliner -mllvm -pipeliner-mve-cg" > > with "-fslp-vectorize" that is causing problems in this case. Based on my > > testing: > > > > flang -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v1 -mllvm -aarch64-enable-pipeliner -mllvm > > -pipeliner-mve-cg -fslp-vectorize 0105_0223.f90 <- broken > > flang -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v1 -mllvm -aarch64-enable-pipeliner -mllvm > > -pipeliner-mve-cg -fno-slp-vectorize 0105_0223.f90 <- working > > flang -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v1 -fslp-vectorize 0105_0223.f90 <- working > > flang -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v1 0105_0223.f90 <- working (same as above, > > -fslp-vectorize is enabled by O3) > > > > I've not had any prior experience with the two machine pipeliner flags in > > question, but I'll reach > > out to some people who should know more and try to determine where the > > issue is coming from. > > > > Overall I think the consensus in the flang community is that -O3 should > > behave the same way it does > > in clang, and since clang enables the slp-vectorizer by default then so > > should flang. I'm not sure > > whether an interaction with llvm backend flags such as this one here is > > reason enough to diverge > > from that, but I'll start a discussion and get some external opinions on > > that. I suppose it depends > > on whether the issue actually originates in the slp-vectorizer or in the > > pipeliner flags. > > > > In the meantime, would you be able to determine whether the reasons for > > those flags being passed to > > your test suite in the first place are already covered by the > > slp-vectorizer? As in, does omitting > > "-mllvm -aarch64-enable-pipeliner -mllvm -pipeliner-mve-cg" actually > > achieve measurably worse > > results than leaving those in alongside "-fno-slp-vectorize"? If so then it > > will be a very useful > > datapoint for determining what the priority here should be. > > > > Thanks, > > Kajetan ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-8956-ge90d6c2639c: 8 regressions on aarch64
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 12:59, 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. > > > > 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! Thanks, actually I think it was fixed by d956474b89eba23965ad984f37a46ba58add7ca0 Christophe ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
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-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_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 ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-21-init-6604-gc6406c8dba33: 1 regressions on aarch64
Dear contributor,
This FAIL is a floating-point precision error caused by the -ffast-math flag.
Please ignore this mail. We'll update the test.
> Dear contributor,
>
> Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find
> some details below.
>
> In tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld, after:
> | commit llvmorg-21-init-6604-gc6406c8dba33
> | Author: David Green
> | Date: Thu Mar 27 17:25:02 2025 +
> |
> | [AArch64] Add getVectorInstrCost Codesize costs handling. (#130946)
> |
> | We have a lot of missing Codesize costs for vector operations. This
> | patch starts things off by adding codesize costs for
> getVectorInstrCost,
> | returning a single cost instead of the VectorInsertExtractBaseCost
> | ... 2 lines of the commit log omitted.
>
> Produces 1 regressions:
> |
> | regressions.sum:
> | Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0351 ...
> | FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0351/Fujitsu-Fortran-0351_0105.test
> | # "FAIL" means : the execution of the compiled binary failed / output of
> the binary differs from the expected one
>
> Used configuration :
> * Toolchain : cmake -G Ninja ../llvm/llvm
> "-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=clang;lld;flang;openmp;clang-tools-extra"
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=True
> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../llvm-install
> "-DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=AArch64" -DCLANG_DEFAULT_LINKER=lld
> * Testsuite : export
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$\WORKSPACE/llvm-install/lib/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu$\{LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:$\LD_LIBRARY_PATH}
> cmake -GNinja-DCMAKE_C_COMPILER="$\WORKSPACE/llvm-install/bin/clang"
> -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER="$\WORKSPACE/llvm-install/bin/clang++"
> -DCMAKE_Fortran_COMPILER="$\WORKSPACE/llvm-install/bin/flang-new"
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS= -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=
> -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS= -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE="-O3 -ffast-math
> -march=armv8.4-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=256 -mllvm
> -treat-scalable-fixed-error-as-warning=false -flto -fuse-ld=lld -DNDEBUG"
> -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE="-O3 -ffast-math -march=armv8.4-a+sve
> -msve-vector-bits=256 -mllvm -treat-scalable-fixed-error-as-warning=false
> -flto -fuse-ld=lld -DNDEBUG" -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS_RELEASE="-O3 -ffast-math
> -march=armv8.4-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=256 -mllvm
> -treat-scalable-fixed-error-as-warning=false -flto -fuse-ld=lld -DNDEBUG"
> -DTEST_SUITE_FORTRAN=ON -DTEST_SUITE_SUBDIRS=Fujitsu
> "$\WORKSPACE/test/test-suite"
>
> We track this bug report under https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/LLVM-1647.
> Please let us know if you have a fix.
>
> 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_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld-build/1808/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_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld-build/1808/artifact/artifacts/notify/
> The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in
> *
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld-build/1808/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail
>
> Fujitsu testsuite : https://github.com/fujitsu/compiler-test-suite/
>
> Current build :
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld-build/1808/artifact/artifacts
> Reference build :
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld-build/1807/artifact/artifacts
>
> Instruction to reproduce the build :
> https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/sha1/c6406c8dba33d4cf8495257f70f52a21d06245ea/tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld/reproduction_instructions.txt
>
> Full commit :
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c6406c8dba33d4cf8495257f70f52a21d06245ea
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #109240: 2 regressions 2 improvements on arm
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 22:07, 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 > | Date: Wed Mar 26 17:19:11 2025 + > | > | [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, 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
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-9030-g78e0cf06c81: 5 regressions 4 improvements on master-thumb_m33_hard_eabi
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 17:49, 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. > > > > 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.) Indeed. I even re-built the compiler from the commit when the test was introduced, and it wouldn't pass even after fixing the dg directives :-( ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
