Many thanks for the comprehensive reply, Thiago. As it happens, running valgrind with -s on both new testcases, indicates problems emanating from one line in the other test, class_transformational_1.f90. I am investigating and will put it right.
Regards Paul On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:13, Thiago Jung Bauermann < thiago.bauerm...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello Paul, > > Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Thank you very much for your debugging efforts. You really pulled out > the stops. > > You're welcome. In the future if there are other issues or questions > regarding our CI, please feel free to contact us. > > > Can I take it then that you will update the toolchain system wide so > that I can commit the patch > > without triggering you every night? It would be a pity to XFAIL it after > your efforts. > > Now that there's a new Ubuntu LTS I believe we will update our systems > to it in the near feature, but I'm not sure exactly when. > > In any case, committing your patch won't be a problem because we only > report a regression once. The commit will trigger a new notification > email because it will be the first time that the problem will be > detected in trunk, but at that point our system will incorporate that > FAIL into its known failures and not complain about it in the future. > > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 at 06:55, Thiago Jung Bauermann < > thiago.bauerm...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > I ran your patch through a different CI loop that we have, where instead > > of using the distro's toolchain (binutils, gcc, glibc) to build and test > > the patch, it builds every component from scratch and from their > > respective tips of trunk. > > > > This time it didn't detect any problem. All > > gfortran.dg/class_transformational_2.f90 tests passed: > > > > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-arm-precommit/2/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/gfortran.sum.xz > > > > > > I think this means that with Ubuntu 22.04 glibc we see the problem, but > > when using the latest upstream glibc we don't. > > I ran the test on the same machine but inside a container with Ubuntu > 24.04 and I couldn't reproduce the FAIL there, so this confirms my > suspicion: the problem is in the system toolchain, likely in glibc. > > -- > Thiago >
