Hi Guinevere, We've found and fixed an issue in Linaro CI.
The problem was that when a regression is detected (solib-precsave.exp failures in this case), the report also included pre-existing known failures in the regression list. So your 1/8 patch indeed has an issue that needs fixing, but only solib-precsave.exp failures are actual regressions. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention! Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Jun 9, 2026, at 14:39, Guinevere Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/9/26 12:52 AM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> Thiago Jung Bauermann <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> The FAILs in gdb.threads/ are almost surely regressions not yet marked >>> as such by our CI. I also see the gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp and >>> gdb.mi/mi-break.exp FAILs on current trunk so they're also false >>> positives. >> Sorry, I mischecked mi-break.exp. It passes fully on current trunk. It's >> common for MI tests to be flaky though, so it could also be a case of a >> flaky test not yet flagged as such by our CI. >> > Yeah, based on what is changed by the test, there's nothing outside of > gdb.reverse that would be affected by this test > > the solib-precsave.exp failures are definitely concerning though, thanks for > pointing those out! > > -- > Cheers, > Guinevere Larsen > It/she > _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
