Thanks for investigation. I think the number 145 is reasonable. Even though it is more than my number.
I guess the reason you still have more FAILs than me because you are using QEMU (I am using SPIKE), also you need to specify miasligned option to the simulator. For example, for SPIKE, we need --misaligned to the SPIKE. But anyway, no need to send me the FAILs report. I just want to make sure I am not missing some FAILs. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Maciej W. Rozycki Date: 2023-10-11 05:35 To: juzhe.zhong CC: gcc-patches; jeffreyalaw; Robin Dapp; Kito.cheng Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V/testsuite: Enable `vect_pack_trunc' On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote: > It's weird. Could you give me the FAILs report? I keep forgetting that I have a piece of code in my board description files that makes the testsuite leave output files in place, which helps much when debugging failures (although it's not a perfect solution for test cases like those verified at different optimisation levels where the output filename is reused and consequently subsequent outputs overwrite earlier ones; something to improve perhaps). Unfortunately the presence of output files confuses some test cases and makes them fail; arguably a test case bug. None of the offending test cases are directly related to RISC-V development, so I just ignore the presence of these failures and only focus on regressions and progressions between testsuite runs. Here are fresh results with the testsuite output tree made tidy: === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 194602 # of unexpected failures 145 # of unexpected successes 11 # of expected failures 1631 # of unresolved testcases 120 # of unsupported tests 3828 It probably makes no sense to clutter the mailing list with my FAIL and UNRESOLVED results; I can send them off-list if you find them useful. Maciej
