On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 17:49, Sam James via Gcc-regression <gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > > > Dear contributor, > > > > Our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please > > find some details below. > > > > In arm-eabi cortex-m33 hard, after: > > | commit gcc-15-9030-g78e0cf06c81 > > | Author: Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> > > | Date: Sat Mar 29 21:09:25 2025 +0000 > > | > > | testsuite: arm: fixup more dg-final syntax > > | > > | ... as Richard E mentioned on the ML. Followup to > > r15-8956-ge90d6c2639c392. > > | > > | gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > | ... 2 lines of the commit log omitted. > > > > Produces 5 regressions 4 improvements: > > | > > | regressions.sum: > > | Running gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp ... > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > > sxth\\tr[0-9]+,r[0-9]+ 2 > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > > vcvt\\.f32\\.s32\\ts[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > > vcvt\\.s32\\.f32\\ts[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > > | FAIL: gcc.target/arm/short-vfp-1.c scan-assembler-times > > vmov\\tr[0-9]+,s[0-9]+ 2 > > | ... and 1 more > > This one may need an ARM person to take a look at. (The issue was > latent, and the test wasn't being run fully before.)
Indeed. I even re-built the compiler from the commit when the test was introduced, and it wouldn't pass even after fixing the dg directives :-(
