On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 11:52 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 04:21, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 11:01 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 18:15, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches
> > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> > > > Pushed to trunk as r14-3481-g99a3fcb8ff0bf2.
> > > Hi David,
> > > It seems the new tests FAIL on arm for LTO bootstrap config:
> > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/263/artifact/artifacts/06-check_regression/fails.sum/*view*/
> > 
> > Sorry about this.
> > 
> > Looking at e.g. the console.log.xz, I just see the status of the
> > failing tests.
> > 
> > Is there an easy way to get at the stderr from the tests without
> > rerunning this?
> > 
> > Otherwise, I'd appreciate help with reproducing this.
> Hi David,
> I have attached make check log for the failing tests.
> To reproduce, I configured and built gcc with following options on
> armv8 machine:
> ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=neon-fp-armv8 --with-mode=thumb --with-arch=armv8-a
> --disable-werror --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
> make -j$(nproc)

Thanks.

Looks a lot like PR analyzer/110483, which I'm working on now (sorry!)

What's the endianness of the host?


Specifically, the pertinent part of the log is:

FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-17.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
                           ┌─────┬─────┬────┬────┬────┐┌─────┬─────┬─────┐
                           │ [1] │ [1] │[1] │[1] │[1] ││ [1] │ [1] │ [1] │
                           ├─────┼─────┼────┼────┼────┤├─────┼─────┼─────┤
                           │ ' ' │ 'w' │'o' │'r' │'l' ││ 'd' │ '!' │ NUL │
                           ├─────┴─────┴────┴────┴────┴┴─────┴─────┴─────┤
                           │      string literal (type: 'char[8]')       │
                           └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                              │     │    │    │    │      │     │     │
                              │     │    │    │    │      │     │     │
                              v     v    v    v    v      v     v     v
  ┌─────┬────────────────────────────────────────┬────┐┌─────────────────┐
  │ [0] │                  ...                   │[9] ││                 │
  ├─────┴────────────────────────────────────────┴────┤│after valid range│
  │             'buf' (type: 'char[10]')              ││                 │
  └───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘└─────────────────┘
  ├─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┤├────────┬────────┤
                            │                                   │
                  ╭─────────┴────────╮                ╭─────────┴─────────╮
                  │capacity: 10 bytes│                │overflow of 3 bytes│
                  ╰──────────────────╯                ╰───────────────────╯

where the issue seems to be all those [1], which are meant to be index
[0], [1], [2], etc.


Dave

Reply via email to