linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

9 participants
5482 discussions

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.40.9000-60-g07972839108: FAIL: 18 regressions on arm

by ci_notify＠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. We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1309 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In master-arm after: | commit glibc-2.40.9000-60-g07972839108 | Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann(a)inria.fr> | Date: Thu Jul 25 16:38:08 2024 +0200 | | added inputs giving large errors on x86_64 for new C23 functions | | These functions are exp10m1, exp2m1, log10p1, log2p1. | Also regenerated ulps on x86_64. | | For each format, there are 4 values, one for each rounding mode. | (For the intel96 format, there are 8 values, 4 for Intel hardware, | ... 3 lines of the commit log omitted. FAIL: 18 regressions regressions.sum: === glibc tests === Running glibc:math ... FAIL: math/test-double-exp10m1 FAIL: math/test-double-exp2m1 FAIL: math/test-double-log10p1 FAIL: math/test-float-exp10m1 FAIL: math/test-float-exp2m1 FAIL: math/test-float-log10p1 FAIL: math/test-float32-exp10m1 ... and 12 more entries You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/799… The full lists of regressions and improvements as well as configure and make commands are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/799… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/799… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc master-arm -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/799… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/797… Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=07972839108495245d8b… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc ** master-arm *** FAIL: 18 regressions *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_glibc--master-arm-build/799…

3 months, 2 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-20-init-1360-ga42e515e3a9f: Failure on aarch64

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

Hi Julian, Your patch below breaks Flang build [on aarch64]. Would you please investigate? The interesting log is at https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_build--main-aarch64-build/174/artifact… . Thanks! -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Aug 5, 2024, at 16:56, ci_notify(a)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-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/LLVM-1306 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In CI config tcwg_flang_build/main-aarch64 after: > > | commit llvmorg-20-init-1360-ga42e515e3a9f > | Author: Julian Brown <julian.brown(a)amd.com> > | Date: Mon Aug 5 12:37:07 2024 +0100 > | > | [OpenMP] OpenMP 5.1 "assume" directive parsing support (#92731) > | > | This is a minimal patch to support parsing for "omp assume" directives. > | These are meant to be hints to a compiler's optimisers: as such, it is > | legitimate (if not very useful) to ignore them. The patch builds on top > | of the existing support for "omp assumes" directives (note spelling!). > | > | ... 8 lines of the commit log omitted. > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_llvm -- clang;lld;flang;openmp;clang-tools-extra : > # FAILED > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_llvm -- clang;lld;flang;openmp;clang-tools-extra : > 1 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_flang_build/main-aarch64 > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_build--main-aarch64-build/174/artifact… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_build--main-aarch64-build/172/artifact… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… > > Full commit : https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a42e515e3a9f3bb4e44389c097b8910… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_flang_build > ** main-aarch64 > *** Failure > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_build--main-aarch64-build/174/artifact…

3 months, 2 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2414-g2d105efd6f60: FAIL: 3 regressions on aarch64

by Sam James

ci_notify(a)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-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-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 <sam(a)gentoo.org> > | 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.

3 months, 2 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-20-init-943-g366eade911b5: FAIL: 7 regressions: 7 improvements on aarch64

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

Hi Leandro, Our Flang CI is running in test mode, and it already catches regressions! > On Aug 1, 2024, at 01:27, ci_notify(a)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-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/LLVM-1300 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In CI config tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld after: > > | commit llvmorg-20-init-943-g366eade911b5 > | Author: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lupori(a)linaro.org> > | Date: Wed Jul 31 14:39:06 2024 -0300 > | > | [flang][OpenMP] Reland Fix copyprivate semantic checks (#95799) (#101009) > | > | There are some cases in which variables used in OpenMP constructs > | are predetermined as private. The semantic checks for copyprivate > | were not handling those cases. > | > | Besides that, shared symbols were not being properly represented > | ... 9 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 7 regressions: 7 improvements > > regressions.sum: > === test-suite tests === > > Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0141 ... > FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0141/Fujitsu-Fortran-0141_0019.test This means that after your patch the test that could not compile before, now compiles, but fails to run correctly. This is an improvement. > > Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0153 ... > NOEXE: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0234.test > NOEXE: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0235.test > NOEXE: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0237.test These tests go the other way -- they used to fail at runtime before, but now they fail to compile. > > ... and 5 more entries > > improvements.sum: > === test-suite tests === > > Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0141 ... > NOEXE: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0141/Fujitsu-Fortran-0141_0019.test > > Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0153 ... > FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0237.test > FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0234.test > FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0153/Fujitsu-Fortran-0153_0235.test > > ... and 5 more entries Please investigate, and let me know if you need any help in reproducing or troubleshooting these. 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_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-l… > 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-l… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-l… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-l… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-l… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… > > Full commit : https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/366eade911b54878c9cc1835d2544fb… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_flang_test > ** main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-lld > *** FAIL: 7 regressions: 7 improvements > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-Ofast-sve_vls-lto-l…

3 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #94612: Failure on aarch64

by Tobias Burnus

Hi all, what should I do with this – I have no idea what artifacts are nor is it clear to me when looking at the webpage. Tobias ci_notify(a)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-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 gcc_check master-aarch64 after: > > | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/94612 > | Author: Tobias Burnus <tburnus(a)baylibre.com> > | Date: Fri Jul 26 20:05:43 2024 +0200 > | > | libgomp: Fix declare target link with offset array-section mapping [PR116107] > | > | The main idea of 'link' is to permit putting only a subset of a > | huge array on the device. Well, in order to make this work properly, > | it requires that one can map an array section, which does not > | start with the first element. > | > | ... 28 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 6d79d53eed8 Match: Support .SAT_SUB with IMM op for form 1-4 > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gcc: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gcc --: > 0 > # 2 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-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-precommit/7257/art… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64-build/2370/artifac… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

3 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2233-g8d1af8f904a: Failure on arm

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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-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-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 <ak(a)linux.intel.com> > | 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/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2459/artifact/ar… > > 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/8d1af8f904a0c08656d976cbf8ca56dba3… > > 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/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2460/artifact/ar…

3 months, 3 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2362-ga9e9f772c748: Failure on arm

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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-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-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 <jason(a)redhat.com> > | 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/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2471/artifact/ar… > > 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/a9e9f772c7488ac0c09dd92f28890bdab9… > > 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/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2472/artifact/ar…

3 months, 4 weeks

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-20-init-488-g65361ff80c18: FAIL: 2 regressions on aarch64

by ci_notify＠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. We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/LLVM-1291 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In CI config tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla after: | commit llvmorg-20-init-488-g65361ff80c18 | Author: Christudasan Devadasan <christudasan.devadasan(a)amd.com> | Date: Fri Jul 26 20:03:45 2024 +0530 | | [AMDGPU] Use SubtargetPredicate instead of OtherPredicates for subtarget predication. (#100715) FAIL: 2 regressions regressions.sum: === test-suite tests === Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0291 ... FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0291/Fujitsu-Fortran-0291_0008.test Running test-suite:Fujitsu/Fortran/0338 ... FAIL: test-suite :: Fujitsu/Fortran/0338/Fujitsu-Fortran-0338_0061.test You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla-build/8/… 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-O3-sve_vla-build/8/… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla-build/8/… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_flang_test/main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla-build/8/… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla-build/5/… Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… Full commit : https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/65361ff80c18b5920eb45091ff39c1d… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_flang_test ** main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla *** FAIL: 2 regressions *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/llvm/s… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_flang_test--main-aarch64-O3-sve_vla-build/8/…

3 months, 4 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-2360-gdab0f35fcb4d: Failure on arm

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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-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-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 <jason(a)redhat.com> > | 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/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2466/artifact/ar… > > 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/dab0f35fcb4dd3ba584422013096c4ebc6… > > 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/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/2468/artifact/ar…

3 months, 4 weeks

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in gdb: Failure on aarch64

by Simon Marchi

On 2024-07-27 03:34, ci_notify(a)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-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 gdb_check master-aarch64 after: > > | 2 patches in gdb > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/94605 > | 9aca4cc6ec5 gdb: pass inferior to gdbarch_update_p > | f3b21ad781e gdb: pass inferior to target_current_description > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | ced7ecee432 Automatic date update in version.in > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gdb -- --prefix /usr --disable install: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gdb -- --set check_buffer_workaround=gdb-read1: > 0 > # 1 regressions > > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # build_abe gdb -- --prefix /usr --disable install: > -2 > # build_abe dejagnu: > -1 > # build_abe check_gdb -- --set check_buffer_workaround=gdb-read1: > 0 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_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_gdb_check--master-aarch64-precommit/2974/art… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64-build/1474/artifac… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files. Hello, Could you help me understand what failed? Simon

3 months, 4 weeks

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
549
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain