On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi > > (both bare-metal) configurations even after moving up to dejagnu > > 1.5.1. If this can't be fixed easily should we consider reverting this > > patch in the interest of getting sane test results on bare-metal > > targets before the release ? > > > > Should we also update the prereqs page to say dejagnu 1.5.1 ? > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) > > Jason has disabled the problematic test temporarily last night, can you > please verify bare-metal cross-testing now works?
I just noticed that I see this error, so the problem still exists at r209347 (seen for cris-elf). (The FAILs are old and provided only for context; the ERRORs are fatal.) ... Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 13) FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++11 (test for warnings, line 13) FAIL: g++.dg/abi/vbase10.C -std=gnu++1y (test for warnings, line 13) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-17.2.C -std=c++11 (test for errors, line 19) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-17.2.C -std=c++1y (test for errors, line 19) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-21.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-21.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-39.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-39.C -std=gnu++1y (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-51.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-51.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-52.C -std=c++1y (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/dso/dlclose1-dso.cc (test for excess errors) ERROR: tcl error sourcing /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp. ERROR: can't rename "dg-save-unknown": command doesn't exist while executing "rename dg-save-unknown unknown" (procedure "saved-dg-test" line 96) invoked from within "saved-dg-test /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dso/dlclose1.C -std=c++98 { -pedantic-errors -Wno-long-long}" ("eval" body line 1) invoked from within "eval saved-dg-test $args " (procedure "dg-test" line 11) invoked from within "dg-test $test $flags ${default-extra-flags}" (procedure "g++-dg-runtest" line 27) invoked from within "g++-dg-runtest $tests $DEFAULT_CXXFLAGS" (file "/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp" line 60) invoked from within "source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp" ("uplevel" body line 1) invoked from within "uplevel #0 source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp" invoked from within "catch "uplevel #0 source $test_file_name"" Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp ... ERROR: tcl error sourcing /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp. ERROR: can't rename "unknown": command doesn't exist while executing "rename unknown dg-save-unknown" (procedure "saved-dg-test" line 69) invoked from within "saved-dg-test /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov-1.C -std=gnu++98 {}" ("eval" body line 1) invoked from within "eval saved-dg-test $args " (procedure "dg-test" line 11) invoked from within "dg-test $test $flags ${default-extra-flags}" (procedure "g++-dg-runtest" line 27) invoked from within "g++-dg-runtest [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/*.C]] """ (file "/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp" line 42) invoked from within "source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp" ("uplevel" body line 1) invoked from within "uplevel #0 source /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov.exp" invoked from within "catch "uplevel #0 source $test_file_name"" Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/gomp.exp ... So, I've lost track of regression state since this error was introduced. (I had a grep supposed to watch for errors like this to treat it as a build error, but unfortunately the pattern was too narrow.) Can this please be reverted and a patch circulated for testing instead? brgds, H-P