[Linaro-TCWG-CI] binutils-2_41-release-3303-ga71d8768011: FAIL: 2 regressions on aarch64

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

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 31 May

Progress (short week, three days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - another week of pretty much just code review: + more of RTH's decodetree conversion series (several rounds) + "Connect STM32L4x5 USART devices to the EXTI" v2 + "Check clock connection between STM32L4x5 RCC and

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-15-168-g21e7aa5f3ea: FAIL: 6 regressions on aarch64

Hi Harald, On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 21:02, 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

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 23 May

Progress (short week, three days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - spent pretty much all week working through the code review backlog that had built up while I was on holiday and at Connect: + RTH's patchset making various updates to the risu random-instruction-sequence

Fwd: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89969: Failure on aarch64

Hi all, I received this message about my patch failing to build. It probably is my fault, but I cannot figure out why, it bootstraps without problems on my own computer. All of my attempts to reproduce have failed, and I don't have any ideas would could cause this. All of my guesses for

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-2094-gc223d373883: FAIL: 5 regressions on arm

I am not. On 2024-04-22 01:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > As you may have noticed, this patch caused new failures on arm. > Are you working on a fix? > > Thanks, > > Christophe > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 16:59, wrote: >> >> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 3 May

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - last bits of prep and admin for Connect - investigating what we should do with the MPIDR when the user specifies a topology setup when the CPU being emulated is or is not one with MPIDR.MT set. I had written this up as a

RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm

> -Original Message- > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 3:40 PM > To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC) > Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm

Hello Andrew, "Andrew Pinski (QUIC)" writes: > These are all expected "failures" for arm (aarch32) really; the new testcases > were known > to fail for that target; it is recorded as PR 224847. I was not sure how to > record this > besides in the commit message. Is the PR number correct? I

RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm

These are all expected "failures" for arm (aarch32) really; the new testcases were known to fail for that target; it is recorded as PR 224847. I was not sure how to record this besides in the commit message. Should I xfail them for the targets that are known to fail? Thanks, Andrew Pinski >

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 26 Apr

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - made the 9.0 release and handed over pullreq processing to RTH for the 9.1 cycle - collected up and sent out the first target-arm pullreq for 9.1 - finished creating JIRA issues for QEMU for FEAT_* features to bring us into sync with

Re: gcc patch #88922: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

> On Apr 24, 2024, at 09:55, Paul Richard Thomas > wrote: > > Hi, > > Executing on host: > /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/builds/destdir/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gfortran > >

gcc patch #88922: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

Hi, Executing on host: /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/builds/destdir/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gfortran /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr89462.f90 -fdiagnostics-plain-output

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

On Apr 23, 2024, at 02:57, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: Hi Qing, On Apr 22, 2024, at 17:53, Qing Zhao wrote: Hi, Maxim, Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I see now. However, my patch set includes 4 patches, and the last one is the testing case adjustment patch that should fix all the testing

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

Hi Qing, > On Apr 22, 2024, at 17:53, Qing Zhao wrote: > > Hi, Maxim, > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > Yes, I see now. > > However, my patch set includes 4 patches, and the last one is the testing > case adjustment patch that should fix all the testing failures. I am not sure >

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

Hi, Maxim, Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I see now. However, my patch set includes 4 patches, and the last one is the testing case adjustment patch that should fix all the testing failures. I am not sure whether the last patch was applied or not (from my understanding, the last patch was

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

Hi Qing, Linaro runs pre-commit CI in which we test patches posted to GNU toolchain mailing lists. Your patch series showed regressions in our pre-commit testing, and CI sent you below report. The goal of pre-commit CI is catch problematic patches before they are merged. Does this answer

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

Hi, I am wondering why I got the following message? I only sent patch review request to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, never committed the patches to any public repository. Are there anyone else applied the patches to sourceware and tested them? I have posted many

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-2123-g4e417d7bb1c: FAIL: 3 regressions on aarch64

Hi Tom. As you may have noticed, your patch below caused regressions in the libstdc++ testsuite on aarch64: FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/debug.cc print redirected FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple.cc print redirected FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple11.cc print redirected For instance,

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-2094-gc223d373883: FAIL: 5 regressions on arm

Hi Pedro, As you may have noticed, this patch caused new failures on arm. Are you working on a fix? Thanks, Christophe On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 16:59, wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 19 Apr

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - got rc4 out of the door; 9.0 release next week - working through the rev K.a Arm ARM to resync the list of architecture features we have implemented and the Linaro JIRA issues that track the ones we haven't. Sent a patchset that

Re: Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #88475: Failure on aarch64

On 2024-04-15 22:12  Christophe Lyon wrote: > >On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 12:15, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 4 patches in gdb: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

Hi! On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 15:39, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > > Hello, > > > | 4 patches in gdb > > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/88278 > > | 343a2568d2c gdb, infrun: fix multi-threaded reverse stepping > > | a4cfc3d32a8 gdb, infrun, record: move no-history

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #88475: Failure on aarch64

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 12:15, 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

RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 4 patches in gdb: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

Hello, > | 4 patches in gdb > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/88278 > | 343a2568d2c gdb, infrun: fix multi-threaded reverse stepping > | a4cfc3d32a8 gdb, infrun, record: move no-history notification into >normal_stop > | fc70b453e32 gdb, infrun, record: fix hang when

[ACTIVITY] report week ending Apr 12

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - looking at some late-breaking patches for various more-or-less 9.0-worthy bugs - tagged rc3; looks like we'll need an rc4, though - back to looking at cleanups and refactorings of our reset handling: + add support for a new reset

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9891-g5aa3fec38cc: FAIL: 12 regressions on aarch64

Yeah I'll fix this, looks like a testism due to changes in codegen between dev and commit versions, code improved too so it's the good type of testism ;) From: ci_not...@linaro.org Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:43 PM To: Andre Simoes Dias Vieira Cc:

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] v6.9-rc2-36-gfc4216add64ee: Failure on arm

ci_not...@linaro.org writes: > In CI config tcwg_kernel/gnu-master-arm-next-allyesconfig after: > > | commit v6.9-rc2-36-gfc4216add64ee > | Author: Samuel Holland > | Date: Fri Mar 29 00:18:28 2024 -0700 > | > | drm/amd/display: use ARCH_HAS_KERNEL_FPU_SUPPORT > | > |

Re: Pre-commit execution test for pr113363.f90

Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: > [CC: Thiago, for GDB crash] Thanks! > However, if I try to print "x", GDB crashes: > === > (gdb) p x > $2 = ( _data = (0x6568, > /build/gdb-aPmCGS/gdb-12.1/gdb/value.c:856: internal-error: > value_contents_bits_eq: > Assertion `offset1 + length <= TYPE_LENGTH

Re: Pre-commit execution test for pr113363.f90

[CC: Thiago, for GDB crash] Hi Paul, The test crashes immediately, it doesn't time out. You see "timeout" in the output because we run all tests under "timeout" utility. The backtrace is from the crash is: === rogram received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0xf7da9070 in arena_for_chunk

Pre-commit execution test for pr113363.f90

Hi there, Thanks for the heads-up on gcc patch #88281: 6 regressions on arm. I see from the log that the test timed-out and the core was dumped. I cannot reproduce this and can see nothing in the tree-dump that might cause a time out. I would appreciate some help on where the fault lies and what

[ACTIVITY] Report for week #14

[QEMU maintenance] * Got involved offline via qemu-security@ for 2 bugs for 9.0, sent 2 patches: - virtio dma re-entrancy (use after free) https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20240404191339.5688-1-phi...@linaro.org/ - hw sdhci (overflow)

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 5 Apr

Progress (short week, 3 days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - more pullreq wrangling - more FEAT_NMI patchset review: I think I'm now finally done with this - looked at issue #2150 and produced a short standalone repro case from the logfile the user provided (which was from a

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #88035: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:21, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] binutils-2_41-release-2766-ga9505c74206: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

"H.J. Lu" writes: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:18 AM wrote: >> >> We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1188 >> , please let >> us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. >> >> In master-aarch64 after: >> >> | commit

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] binutils-2_41-release-2766-ga9505c74206: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:18 AM 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

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] binutils-2_41-release-2766-ga9505c74206: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

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

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.39.9000-128-ga4ed0471d7: FAIL: 4 regressions on aarch64

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

Re: clang-aarch64-sve-vls-2stage workers

Thanks! On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 2:36 PM Omair Javaid wrote: > > Hi Vitaly, > > Thanks for pointing out the bad buildbot worker. > > We were already looking into the issue and I have now stopped the worker > until it's fixed. > > Apologies for inconvenience! > > -- > Omair Javaid > www.linaro.org

Re: clang-aarch64-sve-vls-2stage workers

Hi Vitaly, Thanks for pointing out the bad buildbot worker. We were already looking into the issue and I have now stopped the worker until it's fixed. Apologies for inconvenience! -- Omair Javaid www.linaro.org On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 22:19, Vitaly Buka wrote: > Looks like one worker in a

clang-aarch64-sve-vls-2stage workers

Looks like one worker in a bad state? https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/176 https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/workers/207 is green https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/workers/209 is red Would it be possible to fix or shut down a bad worker? Thank you!

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #87686: FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions on arm

Hi Christina, This is false-positive report -- see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31575 for details. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Mar 29, 2024, at 10:22, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #87793: FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions on arm

Hi Kevin, This is false-positive report -- see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31575 for details. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Mar 29, 2024, at 10:48, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your >

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 8 patches in gdb: FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions on arm

Hi Abdul, Hi Nils, This is false-positive report -- see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31575 for details. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Mar 29, 2024, at 10:52, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 4 patches in gdb: FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions on arm

Hi Gustavo, This is false-positive report -- see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31575 for details. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Mar 29, 2024, at 10:54, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your >

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 28 Mar

Progress (short week, 3 days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - more FEAT_NMI patchset review: done with the physical interrupt parts, haven't looked at the virtual interrupt parts yet - usual release related effort - investigated and fixed a bug where we were taking HSTR traps

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9157-gff442719cdb: slowed down by 23% - 549.fotonik3d_r on aarch64 O3

Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: > Hi Richard, > > Heads up, our benchmarking CI flagged your commit to cause 23% regression in > 549.fotonik3d_r on Cortex-A57 at -O3. > > Do you have internal benchmarks for this change? Yeah, but we don't see any change in fotonik from before this change. That's

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9157-gff442719cdb: slowed down by 23% - 549.fotonik3d_r on aarch64 O3

Hi Richard, Heads up, our benchmarking CI flagged your commit to cause 23% regression in 549.fotonik3d_r on Cortex-A57 at -O3. Do you have internal benchmarks for this change? Thanks! -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Mar 24, 2024, at 03:43, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > >

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 22 Mar

Progress (short week, 3 days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - more softfreeze related work: tagged rc0 this week - spent some time looking through Huawei's FEAT_NMI patchset; this is in basically good shape but there are a number of minor bugs/missing bits of the feature for

RE: LLVM buildbot clang-aarch64-full-2stage

Thanks very much, will do. -Orlando From: Omair Javaid Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 12:34 PM To: Cazalet-Hyams, Orlando Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: LLVM buildbot clang-aarch64-full-2stage Hi Orlando, Thanks for getting in touch. I have just approved your zorg pull

Re: LLVM buildbot clang-aarch64-full-2stage

Hi Orlando, Thanks for getting in touch. I have just approved your zorg pull request. Please request Galina Kistanova gkistan...@gmail.com for buildbots restart once you merge your changes to zorg. On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 17:25, orlando.hy...@sony.com wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed this address

LLVM buildbot clang-aarch64-full-2stage

Hi, I noticed this address registered as the admin for this LLVM buildbot - https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/workers/134). I caused a failure at the start of the week (https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/179/builds/9629). I think it's a build (or test) configuration problem as outlined in

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9478-gdf483ebd246: FAIL: 7 regressions on aarch64

Oops. Jakub has fixed this now. On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 23:45, 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,

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 14 Mar

Progress (short week, 3 days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - softfreeze week this week, so a lot of time shepherding patches and pullrequests upstream, looking to see if we have any bugs that we ought to fix for 9.0, etc - looked at our Coverity results and submitted patches

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1411-g033bc67bdb0: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm

>> Just a guess, but maybe making the type global instead of a local type >> (with no linkage) will solve it: >> >> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-prettyprinters/cxx11.cc >> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-prettyprinters/cxx11.cc >> @@ -63,6 +63,11 @@ struct datum >> >>

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc-2.39.9000-100-g2367bf468c: 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1411-g033bc67bdb0: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 20:53, Tom Tromey wrote: > > >> Just a guess, but maybe making the type global instead of a local type > >> (with no linkage) will solve it: > >> > >> --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-prettyprinters/cxx11.cc > >> +++

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1411-g033bc67bdb0: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm

> On Mar 11, 2024, at 20:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 16:38, Maxim Kuvyrkov > wrote: >> >>> On Jan 30, 2024, at 23:03, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: >>> >>> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your >>> patch(es). Please find some

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1356-g7737b133640: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

> Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: >> | commit gdb-14-branchpoint-1356-g7737b133640 >> | Author: Tom Tromey >> | Date: Tue Jan 9 11:47:17 2024 -0700 >> | >> | Handle DW_AT_endianity on enumeration types >> | >> | A user found that gdb would not correctly print a field from an Ada >> |

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1356-g7737b133640: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

> On Mar 12, 2024, at 00:14, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: > >>> | commit gdb-14-branchpoint-1356-g7737b133640 >>> | Author: Tom Tromey >>> | Date: Tue Jan 9 11:47:17 2024 -0700 >>> | >>> | Handle DW_AT_endianity on enumeration types >>> | >>> | A user

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1411-g033bc67bdb0: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 16:38, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > > On Jan 30, 2024, at 23:03, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-8680-g2f14c0dbb78: FAIL: 3 regressions on arm

> On Feb 1, 2024, at 16:07, ci_notify--- via Gcc-regression > 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,

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1411-g033bc67bdb0: FAIL: 2 regressions on arm

> On Jan 30, 2024, at 23:03, 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 >

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-8492-g1a8261e047f: FAIL: 3 regressions on arm

> On Jan 30, 2024, at 00:35, ci_notify--- via Gcc-regression > 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,

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-1356-g7737b133640: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

> On Jan 27, 2024, at 17:25, 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 >

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 8 Mar

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - code review (softfreeze is next week!): + Add device STM32L4x5 RCC + Add support for I2C in BCM2835 boards + hw/scsi/lsi53c895a: add timer to scripts processing + target/arm: Do memory alignment check for device memory +

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in binutils: FAIL: 694 regressions on aarch64

> On 5 Mar 2024, at 9:16 pm, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 21:24, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in binutils: FAIL: 694 regressions on aarch64

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 21:24, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9268-g574fd1f17f1: FAIL: 15 regressions: 15 progressions on aarch64

Hi Patrick, This report can be considered as a false alarm: the errors were already present in the baseline, but the ICE line number changed since your patch modified the code in the file where the ICE occurs. That being said, I've noticed another report saying that your patch broke bootstrap on

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 1 Mar

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - code review, notably another round of the raspberry pi 4b emulation series. Reviewed and took a subset of the patches, which is enough to get a working model without PCI or ethernet. We'll work on the landing other parts, but no need

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] llvmorg-19-init-3481-g8c2ae42b3e1c: Failure on aarch64

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:47:11PM +, 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,

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 6 patches in binutils: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 10:41, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 26.02.2024 10:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:05, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 23.02.2024 15:24, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > >>> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > >>>

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 6 patches in binutils: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On 26.02.2024 10:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:05, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 23.02.2024 15:24, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 6 patches in binutils: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

Hi Jan, On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:05, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 23.02.2024 15:24, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 6 patches in binutils: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On 23.02.2024 15:24, 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

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 23 Feb

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - code review - finished and sent out for review the patchset that provides a 3-phase-reset version of qemu_register_reset() - The MSYS2 project are dropping their support for 32-bit Windows, which affects QEMU because we use them for

Re: llvm lldb-aarch64-windows builder failing

Thanks for the report, this is the fallout from some refactoring I did and https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/commit/785839e8d77ca09b4cc415eae1c62c0a1ed8da37 fixes that. It only just got included. So we're back online with a single test failure that I'll be looking into shortly. On Fri, 23 Feb

llvm lldb-aarch64-windows builder failing

I apologize if this is the wrong email for this report. I got it from the "Worker" tab on a build on https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/219 . The build is failing at the build step. It's trying to run: ninja ^"^" ^"^" which is erroring out with ninja: error: empty path

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #85948: FAIL: 7 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 12:44, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > > On 02/21/2024 03:16 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> On Feb 21, 2024, at 05:46, Tiezhu Yang wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/21/2024 03:52 AM, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #85948: FAIL: 7 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

On 02/21/2024 03:16 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: On Feb 21, 2024, at 05:46, Tiezhu Yang wrote: On 02/21/2024 03:52 AM, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. We can see "Operation not permitted" in

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb patch #85948: FAIL: 7 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 05:46, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > > On 02/21/2024 03:52 AM, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: >> If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and >> we will be happy to help. > > We can see "Operation not permitted" in the log info, > please try one of

hey, i would like to know that how does linaro build its toolchain, is there any script that you use for build tool chains?

___ 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] gdb patch #85948: FAIL: 7 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

On 02/21/2024 03:52 AM, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. We can see "Operation not permitted" in the log info, please try one of the following processes to test: (1) set ptrace_scope as 0 $

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-9028-g7f3d900684a: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 progressions on aarch64

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 19:03, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc-14-8998-gc9ce332b557: FAIL: 2 regressions on aarch64

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 21:31, 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:02 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > > > > On 15/02/24 09:13, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:12 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:49 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 15/02/24 08:47, H.J. Lu wrote:

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85772: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:36 AM 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,

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On 15/02/24 09:13, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:12 AM H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:49 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15/02/24 08:47, H.J. Lu wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >> On Feb

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 15 Feb

Progress (short week, 3 days): * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - various bits of cleanup and maintainer stuff - working on a 3-phase-reset-aware equivalent to qemu_register_reset(): have some basically working code, need to tidy it up and look for where the changes it makes to

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:12 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:49 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/02/24 08:47, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:54, H.J. Lu wrote: > >

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:49 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > > > > On 15/02/24 08:47, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov > > wrote: > >> > >>> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:54, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> > >>> FAIL: elf/tst-gnu2-tls2 > >>> > >>> indicates that your

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On 15/02/24 08:47, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov > wrote: >> >>> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:54, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> FAIL: elf/tst-gnu2-tls2 >>> >>> indicates that your _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic may not preserve all caller-saved >>> registers. Please find out how

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:01 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:54, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > FAIL: elf/tst-gnu2-tls2 > > > > indicates that your _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic may not preserve all caller-saved > > registers. Please find out how the test fails. > > Hi H.J., > > See below.

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #85713: FAIL: 19 regressions on arm

Hi Richard, This is a false positive. We had a bit of instability in our CI yesterday, and it should be all fixed now. Thanks, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Feb 14, 2024, at 23:00, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems

[Linaro-TCWG-CI] binutils-2_41-release-2297-g313f04b6edc: 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

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:54, H.J. Lu wrote: > > FAIL: elf/tst-gnu2-tls2 > > indicates that your _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic may not preserve all caller-saved > registers. Please find out how the test fails. Hi H.J., See below. ... > FAIL: 1 regressions > > regressions.sum: >===

Fwd: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1 regressions on arm

FAIL: elf/tst-gnu2-tls2 indicates that your _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic may not preserve all caller-saved registers. Please find out how the test fails. H.J. -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:50 PM Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] glibc patch #85585: FAIL: 1

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in gdb: FAIL: 5 regressions on aarch64

Guinevere Larsen writes: > On 13/02/2024 22:01, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> Hello again, >> >> Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: >> >>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/threadcrash.exp >>> b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/threadcrash.exp >>> index 3905ad6f9362..944fbcac1b18 100644 >>> ---

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 2 patches in gdb: FAIL: 5 regressions on aarch64

On 13/02/2024 22:01, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: Hello again, Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/threadcrash.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/threadcrash.exp index 3905ad6f9362..944fbcac1b18 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/threadcrash.exp +++

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #85693: FAIL: 33 regressions on arm

Hi Nathaniel, We enabled guality tests in our CI setup yesterday, and this is part of the fallout. Please ignore this report. Kind regards, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov https://www.linaro.org > On Feb 14, 2024, at 09:55, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >