Re: some help with reproducing a ci fail
Hi Maxim, > On 15 Jan 2024, at 09:51, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > [Apologies for late reply, your email got caught in moderation queue.] ah… > Do you still need help in reproducing the build? No; I believe that it was figured out with some help on IRC and the issue fixed. Thanks for checking. > On our side we are working to include configure/make lines into reports to > simplify reproduction. That would likely be helpful, thanks Iain ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: some help with reproducing a ci fail
Hi Ian, [Apologies for late reply, your email got caught in moderation queue.] Do you still need help in reproducing the build? On our side we are working to include configure/make lines into reports to simplify reproduction. Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Oct 22, 2023, at 23:46, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi > > So, I have a ci fail email, and it seems likely to be a valid complaint - > but the reproduce instructions do not work on my platform (bash is not new > enough) > and also do not work on cfarm186 (../jenkins-scripts/jenkins-helpers.sh: line > 1762: ts: command not found) > > For the record, the patch that is flagged as failing *was* tested on > aarch64-linux-gnu (cfarm185) > > So, I am trying to figure out if the target is different, or some other > configure argument. > > .. but I cannot work out the failing configure line at present - nor can I > see a place to download the console log from the actual failing GCC build > (which would presumably have that configure line). > > any help much appreciated. > Iain > > ___ > linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 7 patches in gcc: Failure on arm
Hi Lehua, [Apologies for late reply, your email got caught in moderation queue.] Do you still need help in reproducing the build? On our side we are working to include configure/make lines into reports to simplify reproduction. Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Nov 12, 2023, at 11:41, Lehua Ding wrote: > > Hi, > > I received an error reported by CI for my patchs, I would like to ask how I > have to reproduce it locally? I looked at the logs and didn't find the way > how it compiles. Thanks in advance. > > On 2023/11/8 16:59, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: >> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your >> patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, >> please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's >> #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on >> the usual project channel. >> In gcc_build master-arm after: >> | 7 patches in gcc >> | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/79366 >> | ef64c12c9f0 lra: Support subreg live range track and conflict detect >> | a871f544e2b lra: Apply live_subreg df_problem to lra pass >> | 6437747d6f3 ira: Add all nregs >= 2 pseudos to tracke subreg list >> | 1a2da1ad5f0 ira: Support subreg copy >> | 4f8d8e764e0 ira: Support subreg live range track >> | ... and 2 more patches in gcc >> | ... applied on top of baseline commit: >> | ca281a7b971 [i386] APX: Fix ICE due to movti postreload splitter >> [PR112394] >> Results changed to >> # reset_artifacts: >> -10 >> # true: >> 0 >> # build_abe gcc: >> # FAILED >> # First few build errors in logs: >> # 00:03:49 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2700:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:49 make[2]: *** [Makefile:505: _muldc3.o] Error 1 >> # 00:03:49 make[1]: *** [Makefile:14486: all-target-libgcc] Error 2 >> # 00:03:49 make: *** [Makefile:1056: all] Error 2 >> # 00:03:41 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:41 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2700:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:41 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:41 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:41 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:42 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2865:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:42 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:42 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:42 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> # 00:03:42 >> /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: >> internal compiler error: Aborted >> From >> # reset_artifacts: >> -10 >> # true: >> 0 >> # build_abe gcc: >> 1 >> The configuration of this build is: >> CI config tcwg_gcc_build/master-arm >> -8<--8<--8<-- >> The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: >> Current build : >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-precommit/4076/artifact/artifacts >> Reference build : >> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-build/1364/artifact/artifacts > > -- > Best, > Lehua (RiVAI) > lehua.d...@rivai.ai > > ___ > linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #80969: Failure on arm
Hi Rainer,
[Apologies for late reply, your reply got caught in moderation queue.]
We have considered automatically regenerating autoconf, etc. files, but have
decided against that, at least for now. My logic is that developers should
receive feedback for the verbatim patches they posted, not for a version of
their patch that has regenerated or otherwise edited parts. I appreciate that
this means that the developer will get a nag from our CI, but, at the very
least, this nag might remind the developer to regenerate the necessary parts
when committing the patch into mainline.
Kind regards,
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org
> On Nov 29, 2023, at 19:20, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> ci_not...@linaro.org writes:
>
>> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your
>> patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions,
>> please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list,
>> Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain
>> developer on the usual project channel.
>>
>> In gcc_build master-arm after:
>>
>> | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/80969
>> | Author: Rainer Orth
>> | Date: Wed Nov 29 15:10:00 2023 +0100
>> |
>> | libiberty: Disable hwcaps for sha1.o
>> |
>> | This patch
>> |
>> | commit bf4f40cc3195eb7b900bf5535cdba1ee51fdbb8e
>> | Author: Jakub Jelinek
>> | Date: Tue Nov 28 13:14:05 2023 +0100
>> | ... 26 lines of the commit log omitted.
>> | ... applied on top of baseline commit:
>> | 4c909c6ee38 In 'libgomp.c/target-simd-clone-{1,2,3}.c', restrict
>> | 'scan-offload-ipa-dump's to 'only_for_offload_target amdgcn-amdhsa'
>>
>> Results changed to
>> # reset_artifacts:
>> -10
>> # true:
>> 0
>> # build_abe gcc:
>> # FAILED
>> # First few build errors in logs:
>> # 00:02:15 gccgo: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program go1
>> # 00:02:23 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>> # 00:02:23 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1219: regex.o] Error 1
>> # 00:02:23 make[1]: *** [Makefile:8370: all-libiberty] Error 2
>> # 00:02:23 make: *** [Makefile:1057: all] Error 2
>> # 00:01:06 gccgo: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program go1
>> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:776: fdmatch.o] Error 1
>> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:805: filedescriptor.o] Error 1
>> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:837: fnmatch.o] Error 1
>> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:817: filename_cmp.o] Error 1
>> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
>> file or directory
>>
>> From
>> # reset_artifacts:
>> -10
>> # true:
>> 0
>> # build_abe gcc:
>> 1
>>
>> The configuration of this build is:
>> CI config tcwg_gcc_build master-arm
>>
>> -8<--8<--8<--
>> The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
>>
>> Current build :
>> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-precommit/4887/artifact/artifacts
>> Reference build :
>> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-build/1444/artifact/artifacts
>>
>
> As is customary for gcc patches, this patch didn't include the generated
> files to simplify review. Thus, to test it in any meaningful way, one
> needs to run aclocal and autoconf before configuring/building. Not
> doing so just produces meaningless mails from the CI.
>
> Rainer
> ___
> linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #83947: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm
At 08:36 + on Friday, 2024-01-12, wrote ci_not...@linaro.org： > Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please > follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's > #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain > developer on the usual project channel. Ok, I will fix this error as soon as possible! ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-6840-g86f535cb466: FAIL: 2 regressions: 2 progressions on arm
Hi, Christophe Yes, I assumed that it was a false error, but I was not certain how to acknowledge that in the CI infrastructure and reporting system that Linaro has deployed. Thanks, David On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:19 AM Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi David, > > As you have probably guessed, this is a false alarm: the testcases you > updated were already failing before your patch, but it changed the > line numbers, thus making the scripts think a failure disappeared and > a new one appeared. > > Thanks, > > Christophe > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 01:15, wrote: > > > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, > please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, > Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain > developer on the usual project channel. > > > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI > within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > > > We track this report status in > https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1094 , please let us know if you > are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > > > In bootstrap_check master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto after: > > > > | commit gcc-14-6840-g86f535cb466 > > | Author: David Edelsohn > > | Date: Tue Dec 26 16:44:09 2023 + > > | > > | testsuite: Skip analyzer out-of-bounds-diagram on AIX. > > | > > | The out-of-bounds diagram tests fail on AIX. > > | > > | gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > | * gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-17.c: Skip on > AIX. > > | * gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-18.c: Same. > > | ... 2 lines of the commit log omitted. > > > > FAIL: 2 regressions: 2 progressions > > > > regressions.sum: > > === gcc tests === > > > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/analyzer/analyzer.exp ... > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-17.c expected multiline > pattern lines 15-36 > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-18.c expected multiline > pattern lines 15-44 > > > > === Results Summary === > > > > progressions.sum: > > === gcc tests === > > > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/analyzer/analyzer.exp ... > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-17.c expected multiline > pattern lines 14-35 > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-18.c expected multiline > pattern lines 14-43 > > > > === Results Summary === > > > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/497/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ > . > > The full lists of regressions and progressions are in > > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/497/artifact/artifacts/notify/ > . > > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > > - > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/497/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > . > > > > The configuration of this build is: > > CI config tcwg_bootstrap_check master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto > > > > > -8<--8<--8<-- > > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > > > Current build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/497/artifact/artifacts > > Reference build : > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/496/artifact/artifacts > > > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/86f535cb4664fcaf96ff12942887db949beef27d/tcwg_bootstrap_check/master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto/reproduction_instructions.txt > > > > Full commit : > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/86f535cb4664fcaf96ff12942887db949beef27d > > > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > > * tcwg_bootstrap_check > > ** master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto > > *** FAIL: 2 regressions: 2 progressions > > *** > https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/86f535cb4664fcaf96ff12942887db949beef27d/tcwg_bootstrap_check/master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto/details.txt > > *** > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/497/artifact/artifacts > ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-6861-g200531d5b9f: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm
> -Original Message- > From: ci_not...@linaro.org > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 7:40 AM > To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC) > Cc: gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-6861-g200531d5b9f: FAIL: 1 regressions > on arm > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please > follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's > #linaro-tcwg > channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual > project > channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or > reproduce > the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, > let > us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1091 , > please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a > fix. First I suspect this was failing before r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8 and I just return it back to that state. The big ask I have is for reports like this, to include the exact gcc configure line that was used. In this case, is GCC configured to include neon by default? If so then the testcase needs to be updated to add an option to disable neon. If not, then someone else will need to look into why the testcase is failing. Basically, the update I did was disable vectorization on a loop which was not being vectorized before r14-6822-g01f4251b8775c8. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > In master-arm after: > > | commit gcc-14-6861-g200531d5b9f > | Author: Andrew Pinski > | Date: Thu Dec 28 20:26:01 2023 -0800 > | > | Fix gen-vect-26.c testcase after loops with multiple exits [PR113167] > | > | This fixes the gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c testcase by adding > | `#pragma GCC novector` in front of the loop that is doing the checking > | of the result. We only want to test the first loop to see if it can be > | vectorize. > | > | ... 9 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 1 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-ssa.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of > access forced using peeling" 1 > > === Results Summary === > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm- > build/1147/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ . > The full lists of regressions and progressions are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm- > build/1147/artifact/artifacts/notify/ . > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm- > build/1147/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail . > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc master-arm > > -8<--8<--8< > -- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master- > arm-build/1147/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc-- > master-arm-build/1146/artifact/artifacts > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git- > us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting- > commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/200531d5b9fb99eca2b0d6b8d1e42d17641322 > 5f/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc- > mirror/gcc/commit/200531d5b9fb99eca2b0d6b8d1e42d176413225f > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc > ** master-arm > *** FAIL: 1 regressions > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting- > commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/200531d5b9fb99eca2b0d6b8d1e42d17641322 > 5f/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc/master-arm/details.txt > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_cross_check_gcc--master-arm- > build/1147/artifact/artifacts ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #80969: Failure on arm
ci_not...@linaro.org writes:
> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your
> patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions,
> please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list,
> Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain
> developer on the usual project channel.
>
> In gcc_build master-arm after:
>
> | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/80969
> | Author: Rainer Orth
> | Date: Wed Nov 29 15:10:00 2023 +0100
> |
> | libiberty: Disable hwcaps for sha1.o
> |
> | This patch
> |
> | commit bf4f40cc3195eb7b900bf5535cdba1ee51fdbb8e
> | Author: Jakub Jelinek
> | Date: Tue Nov 28 13:14:05 2023 +0100
> | ... 26 lines of the commit log omitted.
> | ... applied on top of baseline commit:
> | 4c909c6ee38 In 'libgomp.c/target-simd-clone-{1,2,3}.c', restrict
> | 'scan-offload-ipa-dump's to 'only_for_offload_target amdgcn-amdhsa'
>
> Results changed to
> # reset_artifacts:
> -10
> # true:
> 0
> # build_abe gcc:
> # FAILED
> # First few build errors in logs:
> # 00:02:15 gccgo: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program go1
> # 00:02:23 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
> # 00:02:23 make[2]: *** [Makefile:1219: regex.o] Error 1
> # 00:02:23 make[1]: *** [Makefile:8370: all-libiberty] Error 2
> # 00:02:23 make: *** [Makefile:1057: all] Error 2
> # 00:01:06 gccgo: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program go1
> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:776: fdmatch.o] Error 1
> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:805: filedescriptor.o] Error 1
> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:837: fnmatch.o] Error 1
> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
> # 00:02:10 make[2]: *** [Makefile:817: filename_cmp.o] Error 1
> # 00:02:10 gcc: error: @HWCAP_CFLAGS@: linker input file not found: No such
> file or directory
>
> From
> # reset_artifacts:
> -10
> # true:
> 0
> # build_abe gcc:
> 1
>
> The configuration of this build is:
> CI config tcwg_gcc_build master-arm
>
> -8<--8<--8<--
> The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment:
>
> Current build :
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-precommit/4887/artifact/artifacts
> Reference build :
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-build/1444/artifact/artifacts
>
As is customary for gcc patches, this patch didn't include the generated
files to simplify review. Thus, to test it in any meaningful way, one
needs to run aclocal and autoconf before configuring/building. Not
doing so just produces meaningless mails from the CI.
Rainer
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 7 patches in gcc: Failure on arm
Hi, I received an error reported by CI for my patchs, I would like to ask how I have to reproduce it locally? I looked at the logs and didn't find the way how it compiles. Thanks in advance. On 2023/11/8 16:59, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. In gcc_build master-arm after: | 7 patches in gcc | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/79366 | ef64c12c9f0 lra: Support subreg live range track and conflict detect | a871f544e2b lra: Apply live_subreg df_problem to lra pass | 6437747d6f3 ira: Add all nregs >= 2 pseudos to tracke subreg list | 1a2da1ad5f0 ira: Support subreg copy | 4f8d8e764e0 ira: Support subreg live range track | ... and 2 more patches in gcc | ... applied on top of baseline commit: | ca281a7b971 [i386] APX: Fix ICE due to movti postreload splitter [PR112394] Results changed to # reset_artifacts: -10 # true: 0 # build_abe gcc: # FAILED # First few build errors in logs: # 00:03:49 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2700:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:49 make[2]: *** [Makefile:505: _muldc3.o] Error 1 # 00:03:49 make[1]: *** [Makefile:14486: all-target-libgcc] Error 2 # 00:03:49 make: *** [Makefile:1056: all] Error 2 # 00:03:41 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:41 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2700:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:41 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:41 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:41 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:72:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:42 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/libgcc2.c:2865:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:42 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:42 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:42 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: internal compiler error: Aborted # 00:03:42 /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libgcc/fixed-bit.c:143:1: internal compiler error: Aborted From # reset_artifacts: -10 # true: 0 # build_abe gcc: 1 The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_gcc_build/master-arm -8<--8<--8<-- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-precommit/4076/artifact/artifacts Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm-build/1364/artifact/artifacts -- Best, Lehua (RiVAI) lehua.d...@rivai.ai ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-5115-g6e9ee44d96e: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm
I will look at this. I did not show up in my tests though and seems unrelated to the change (maybe surfaced because of it) Martin Am Montag, dem 06.11.2023 um 08:48 + schrieb Jiang, Haochen: > It also caused x86 backend regression. Please help verify it. > > Thx, > Haochen > > > -Original Message- > > From: Gcc-regression > bounces+haochen.jiang=intel@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of ci_notify--- via > > Gcc-regression > > Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 2:43 PM > > To: uec...@tugraz.at > > Cc: ci_not...@linaro.org; gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-5115-g6e9ee44d96e: FAIL: 1 regressions > > on arm > > > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, > > please > > follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's > > #linaro-tcwg > > channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual > > project > > channel. > > > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > > > | commit gcc-14-5115-g6e9ee44d96e > > | Author: Martin Uecker > > | Date: Thu Apr 13 19:35:15 2023 +0200 > > | > > | Reduce false positives for -Wnonnull for VLA parameters [PR98541] > > | > > | This patch limits the warning about NULL arguments to VLA > > | parameters declared [static n]. > > | > > | PR c/98541 > > | > > | ... 8 lines of the commit log omitted. > > > > FAIL: 1 regressions > > > > regressions.sum: > > === gcc tests === > > > > Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ... > > FAIL: gcc.dg/Wnonnull-4.c (test for excess errors) > > > > === Results Summary === > > > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > > build/1213/artifact/artifacts/00-sumfiles/ . > > The full lists of regressions and progressions are in > > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > > build/1213/artifact/artifacts/notify/ . > > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > > build/1213/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail . > > > > The configuration of this build is: > > CI config tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm > > > > -8<--8<--8< > > -- > > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > > build/1213/artifact/artifacts > > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > > build/1212/artifact/artifacts > > > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git- > > us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting- > > commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/6e9ee44d96e5bda8808dd9d8ccf58d2525383f6 > > b/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/reproduction_instructions.txt > > > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc- > > mirror/gcc/commit/6e9ee44d96e5bda8808dd9d8ccf58d2525383f6b > > > > Latest bug report status : https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-993 > > > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > > * tcwg_gcc_check > > ** master-arm > > *** FAIL: 1 regressions > > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting- > > commits.git/plain/gcc/sha1/6e9ee44d96e5bda8808dd9d8ccf58d2525383f6 > > b/tcwg_gcc_check/master-arm/details.txt > > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1213/ -- Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Martin Uecker Graz University of Technology Institute of Biomedical Imaging ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 31 patches in gcc: Failure on aarch64
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:24 AM Christophe Lyon wrote: > > Sorry, there was a temporary breakage in our CI scripts, you can > ignore this bogus report. > Thank you for letting me know! > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 18:25, wrote: > > > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, > > please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, > > Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain > > developer on the usual project channel. > > > > In gcc_build master-aarch64 after: > > > > | 31 patches in gcc > > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/78409 > > | ecdd9931b4f libstdc++: Optimize std::is_pointer compilation performance > > | 2d53274d549 c++: Implement __is_pointer built-in trait > > | 9414aba0b5b libstdc++: Optimize std::remove_pointer compilation > > performance > > | b0f04909269 c++: Implement __remove_pointer built-in trait > > | f5ae5fbcc28 libstdc++: Optimize std::is_object compilation performance > > | ... and 26 more patches in gcc > > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > > | 326a8c047ec testsuite: Fix > > gcc.target/arm/mve/mve_vadcq_vsbcq_fpscr_overwrite.c > > > > Results changed to > > # reset_artifacts: > > -10 > > # true: > > 0 > > # build_abe gcc: > > # FAILED > > # First few build errors in logs: > > > > From > > # reset_artifacts: > > -10 > > # true: > > 0 > > # build_abe gcc: > > 1 > > > > The configuration of this build is: > > CI config tcwg_gcc_build/master-aarch64 > > > > -8<--8<--8<-- > > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > > > Current build : > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64-precommit/3362/artifact/artifacts > > Reference build : > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64-build/1263/artifact/artifacts ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
some help with reproducing a ci fail
Hi So, I have a ci fail email, and it seems likely to be a valid complaint - but the reproduce instructions do not work on my platform (bash is not new enough) and also do not work on cfarm186 (../jenkins-scripts/jenkins-helpers.sh: line 1762: ts: command not found) For the record, the patch that is flagged as failing *was* tested on aarch64-linux-gnu (cfarm185) So, I am trying to figure out if the target is different, or some other configure argument. .. but I cannot work out the failing configure line at present - nor can I see a place to download the console log from the actual failing GCC build (which would presumably have that configure line). any help much appreciated. Iain ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Block predication on atomics [PR111235]
On 02/10/2023 18:12, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Hi Ramana, I used --target=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --host=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --build=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf --with-float=hard. However it seems that the default armhf settings are incorrect. I shouldn't need the --with-float=hard since that is obviously implied by armhf, and they should also imply armv7-a with vfpv3 according to documentation. It seems to get confused and skip some tests. I tried using --with-fpu=auto, but that doesn't work at all, so in the end I forced it like: --with-arch=armv8-a --with-fpu=neon-fp-armv8. With this it runs a few more tests. Yeah that's a wart that I don't like. armhf just implies the hard float ABI and came into being to help distinguish from the Base PCS for some of the distros at the time (2010s). However we didn't want to set a baseline arch at that time given the imminent arrival of v8-a and thus the specification of --with-arch , --with-fpu and --with-float became second nature to many of us working on it at that time. Looking at it, the default is indeed incorrect, you get: '-mcpu=arm10e' '-mfloat-abi=hard' '-marm' '-march=armv5te+fp' That's not incorrect. It's the first version of the architecture that can support the hard-float ABI. That's like 25 years out of date! It's not a matter of being out of date (and it's only 22 years since arm1020e was announced ;) it's a matter of being as compatible as we can be with existing hardware out-of-the-box. Distros are free, of course, to set a higher bar and do so. However all the armhf distros have Armv7-a as the baseline and use Thumb-2: '-mfloat-abi=hard' '-mthumb' '-march=armv7-a+fp' Wrong. Rawhide uses Arm state (or it did last I checked). As I mentioned above, distros are free to set a higher bar. So the issue is that dg-require-effective-target arm_arch_v7a_ok doesn't work on armhf. It seems that if you specify an architecture even with hard-float configured, it turns off FP and then complains because hard-float implies you must have FP... OK, I think I see the problem there, it's in the data for proc add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC in lib/target-supports.exp. In order to work correctly with -mfpu=auto, the -march flags in the table need "+fp" adding in most cases (pretty much everything from armv5e onwards) - that's harmless whenever the float-abi is soft, but should do the right thing when softfp or hard are used. So in most configurations Iincluding the one used by distro compilers) we basically skip lots of tests for no apparent reason... Ok, thanks for promising to do so - I trust you to get it done. Please try out various combinations of -march v7ve, v7-a , v8-a with the tool as each of them have slightly different rules. For instance v7ve allows LDREXD and STREXD to be single copy atomic for 64 bit loads whereas v7-a did not . You mean LDRD may be generated on CPUs with LPAE. We use LDREXD by default since that is always atomic on v7-a. Ok if no regressions but as you might get nagged by the post commit CI ... Thanks, I've committed it. Those links don't show anything concrete, however I do note the CI didn't pick up v2. Btw you're happy with backports if there are no issues reported for a few days? Cheers, Wilco R. ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
