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-toolchain(a)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-1294 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix.
In CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig after:
| commit gcc-15-2110-g71b31690a7c5
| Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford(a)arm.com>
| Date: Wed Jul 17 19:38:11 2024 +0100
|
| rtl-ssa: Fix split_clobber_group [PR115928]
|
| One of the goals of the rtl-ssa representation was to allow a
| group of consecutive clobbers to be skipped in constant time,
| with amortised sublinear insertion and deletion. This involves
| putting consecutive clobbers in groups. Splitting or joining
| groups would be linear if we had to update every clobber on
| ... 21 lines of the commit log omitted.
Results changed to
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# build_abe binutils:
-9
# build_abe stage1:
-5
# build_abe qemu:
-2
# linux_n_obj:
0
From
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# build_abe binutils:
-9
# build_abe stage1:
-5
# build_abe qemu:
-2
# linux_n_obj:
7865
# linux build successful:
all
# linux boot successful:
boot
The configuration of this build is:
CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig
-----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------
The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/…
Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/…
Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh…
Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/71b31690a7c52413496e91bcc5ee4c68af…
List of configurations that regressed due to this commit :
* tcwg_kernel
** gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig
*** Failure
*** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh…
*** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-arm-next-defconfig-build/…
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 }.
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-toolchain(a)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-1282 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix.
In CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig after:
| commit gcc-15-2026-g44c9403ed183
| Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx(a)kernel.org>
| Date: Sat Jun 29 15:10:43 2024 +0200
|
| c, objc: Add -Wunterminated-string-initialization
|
| Warn about the following:
|
| char s[3] = "foo";
|
| Initializing a char array with a string literal of the same length as
| ... 63 lines of the commit log omitted.
Results changed to
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# build_abe binutils:
-9
# build_abe stage1:
-5
# build_abe qemu:
-2
# linux_n_obj:
24546
From
# reset_artifacts:
-10
# build_abe binutils:
-9
# build_abe stage1:
-5
# build_abe qemu:
-2
# linux_n_obj:
24548
The configuration of this build is:
CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig
-----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------
The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-…
Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-…
Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh…
Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/44c9403ed1833ae71a59e84f9e37af3182…
List of configurations that regressed due to this commit :
* tcwg_kernel
** gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig
*** Failure
*** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh…
*** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_kernel--gnu-master-aarch64-lts-allmodconfig-…
Hi there,
You detected a failure in gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90:
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O0 (test for excess
errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O0 execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O1 (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O1 execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O2 (test for excess
errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O2 execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
...snip...
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
...snip...
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess
errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -O3 -g execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -Os (test for excess
errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 -Os execution test
The stop message in the full log indicates a numeric error in the first
test. I am unable to reproduce the error. Adding deallocation of all the
allocated variables (which I should have done in the first place) and
running valgrind with -s shows no errors and no memory loss.
I find it odd that it should fail once at -O1 and not at -O2 and higher.
Can you provide me with any insights; eg, by rerunning the testcase outside
of the dejagnu framework?
Thank you for doing this testing, by the way, even if the failure is a bit
obscure at the moment.
Best regards
Paul
I get this problem when the CI is building a patchset for the binutils
with my patches.
The patchset consists of 7 patches, and I suspect that this error message
is generated when only part of the 7 patches are applied.
Could this be true?
They are interdependent, so there is no way to reorder the patches to make
this work if not all the patches are applied.
Den 2024-07-07 kl. 02:47, skrev ci_notify(a)linaro.org:
> 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-toolchain(a)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.
>
> In binutils_build master-arm after:
>
> | 2 patches in binutils
> | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/93436
> | dd57e0ed6f6 ldgram.y: Add ASCII parsing
> | 304119944bb ldlex.l: Add ASCII token
> | ... applied on top of baseline commit:
> | 85a67d0a39a Automatic date update in version.in
>
> Results changed to
> # reset_artifacts:
> -10
> # true:
> 0
> # build_abe binutils:
> # FAILED
> # First few build errors in logs:
> # 00:01:58 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/binutils.git~master/ld/ldgram.y:711:21: error: too many arguments to function ‘lang_add_string’
> # 00:01:58 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_2/abe/snapshots/binutils.git~master/ld/ldgram.y:717:19: error: too many arguments to function ‘lang_add_string’
> # 00:01:58 make[4]: *** [Makefile:2290: ldgram.o] Error 1
> # 00:01:58 make[3]: *** [Makefile:1903: all-recursive] Error 1
> # 00:01:58 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1092: all] Error 2
> # 00:01:58 make[1]: *** [Makefile:8044: all-ld] Error 2
> # 00:01:58 make: *** [Makefile:1028: all] Error 2
>
> From
> # reset_artifacts:
> -10
> # true:
> 0
> # build_abe binutils:
> 1
>
> The configuration of this build is:
> CI config tcwg_binutils_build master-arm
>
> -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------
> The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
>
> Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_binutils_build--master-arm-precommit/2298/ar…
> Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_binutils_build--master-arm-build/1304/artifa…
>
> Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update
> generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the
> master files.
--
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
Greetings!
This is Mingming and I'm an LLVM contributor. I have received a lot of
useful code review feedback from aarch64 experts. Thank you for all of that!
I'm writing to report a failure (
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/122/builds/150) on buildbot
clang-armv8-lld-2stage triggered by my recent patch. The issue seems to
stem from the C++ standard libraries not being configured in the buildbot
environment.
While using a c-style header is a workaround (which pr 97245
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97245> did), @petrhosek reminded
me that it would be good to inform maintainers so they can take a look,
which makes sense to me.
Could someone please assist in resolving this configuration problem?
Thank you in advance and let me know if I miss anything.
Thanks, Mingming