On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 19:05, Matthew Malcomson <matthew.malcom...@arm.com> wrote: > > Resending because I forgot to avoid the disclaimer and hence my email > didn't go to the gcc-patches list. > > > > On 09/09/19 21:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford > >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for doing this. > >> Thanks for the suggestions, I have updated the patch accordingly. > >> Boostrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and > >> aarch64-linux-gnu. > >> Richi, does the patch look OK to you ? > > Hi, > > Bootstrap+test passes for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. > > On x86_64, there's a "strange" failure of c-c++-common/builtins.c, log > > shows: > > > > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/pr86753-v2-3/gcc/gcc/test > > FAIL: c-c++-common/builtins.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors) > > Excess errors: > > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/pr86753-v2-3/gcc/gcc/test > > > > Just FYI I have seen this error come from a restriction in DejaGNU itself. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-05/msg00066.html > > The reply to that email mentions that this restriction was removed in > later DejaGNU versions. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-05/msg00070.html > > If you see the snippet mentioned in the first email (don't continue if > you've already read greater than 512000 bytes of output) in your DejaGNU > install (remote.exp file), and the error messages from the > "-Wc++-compat" test are greater than 512000 bytes then it's likely the > problem is because of DejaGNU rather than your code. > > If that is the case, then a test is to remove the `if` mentioned in the > first email and re-trying the regression test. > > (i.e. replace > > if { [string length $output] < 512000 } { > exp_continue -continue_timer > } > > with > > exp_continue -continue_timer > > in the "local_exec" procedure from $DEJAGNU_INSTALL/remote.exp) > > > > Which shouldn't really happen since the test doesn't seem relevant to patch, > > and only passes -O2 which shouldn't enable the vectorizer ? Manually > > testing it results in PASS with: > > make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=builtins.c" > > Would it be OK to ignore the FAIL during reg-test ? > > > > This also matches the symptoms of this DejaGNU restriction -- it only > comes up when the OS read returned not all the output from the test, and > that happens a lot more when there are many parallel tests running. Hi Matthew, Thanks for the clarification! I had started another bootstrap+regtest before reading your mail, and this time there were no FAIL's, so I assume the FAIL in previous regtest, was due the dejaGNU issue you mentioned.
Thanks, Prathamesh > > > Thanks, > > Prathamesh > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Prathamesh > >>> > >>> Richard >
