Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gdb: 171 regressions on arm

-- Cheers, Guinevere Larsen It/she On 6/9/26 11:02 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Hi Guinevere, > > We've found and fixed an issue in Linaro CI. > > The problem was that when a regression is detected (solib-precsave.exp > failures in this case), the report also included pre-existing known > failures in the regression list.  So your 1/8 patch indeed has an > issue that needs fixing, but only solib-precsave.exp failures are > actual regressions. > > Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention! > > Kind regards, > > -- > Maxim Kuvyrkov > https://www.linaro.org > >> On Jun 9, 2026, at 14:39, Guinevere Larsen guinevere@redhat.com wrote: >> >> On 6/9/26 12:52 AM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >>> Thiago Jung Bauermann thiago.bauermann@linaro.org writes: >>> >>>> The FAILs in gdb.threads/ are almost surely regressions not yet marked >>>> as such by our CI. I also see the gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp and >>>> gdb.mi/mi-break.exp FAILs on current trunk so they're also false >>>> positives. >>> Sorry, I mischecked mi-break.exp. It passes fully on current trunk. It's >>> common for MI tests to be flaky though, so it could also be a case of a >>> flaky test not yet flagged as such by our CI. >>> >> Yeah, based on what is changed by the test, there's nothing outside >> of gdb.reverse that would be affected by this test >> >> the solib-precsave.exp failures are definitely concerning though, >> thanks for pointing those out! >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guinevere Larsen >> It/she >> >