linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

14 participants
5701 discussions

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

by ci_notify＠linaro.org

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(a)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-1187 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. In master-aarch64 after: | commit glibc-2.39.9000-128-ga4ed0471d7 | Author: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella(a)linaro.org> | Date: Thu Jan 18 10:18:01 2024 -0300 | | Always define __USE_TIME_BITS64 when 64 bit time_t is used | | It was raised on libc-help [1] that some Linux kernel interfaces expect | the libc to define __USE_TIME_BITS64 to indicate the time_t size for the | kABI. Different than defined by the initial y2038 design document [2], | the __USE_TIME_BITS64 is only defined for ABIs that support more than | one time_t size (by defining the _TIME_BITS for each module). | ... 12 lines of the commit log omitted. FAIL: 4 regressions regressions.sum: === g++ tests === Running g++:g++.dg/tsan/tsan.exp ... FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O0 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O0 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O2 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C -O2 compilation failed to produce executable ... and 2 more entries You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc master-aarch64 -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=a4ed0471d71739928a0d… List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : * tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc ** master-aarch64 *** FAIL: 4 regressions *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/glibc/… *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1…

2 years

clang-aarch64-sve-vls-2stage workers

by Vitaly Buka

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!

2 years

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

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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(a)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. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | gdb patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/87686 > | Author: Christina Schimpe <christina.schimpe(a)intel.com> > | Date: Wed Mar 27 07:47:37 2024 +0000 > | > | gdb: Make tagged pointer support configurable. > | > | The gdbarch function gdbarch_remove_non_address_bits adjusts addresses to > | enable debugging of programs with tagged pointers on Linux, for instance for > | ARM's feature top byte ignore (TBI). > | Once the function is implemented for an architecture, it adjusts addresses for > | memory access, breakpoints and watchpoints. > | ... 12 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 1678a15b694 Automatic date update in version.in > > FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/verylong.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print (x / 4) * 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print +x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print -x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x - 99 + 1 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x / 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 > ... and 1 more entries > > progressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print $item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: set variable $item := item > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: print small > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: print multi_multi(1,3) > ... and 18 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2024/artifac… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2024/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2024/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_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_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2024/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/984/artifact/art… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

2 years

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

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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(a)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. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | gdb patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/87793 > | Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb(a)redhat.com> > | Date: Thu Mar 28 15:53:14 2024 -0700 > | > | New test: gdb.base/check-errno.exp > | > | Printing the value of 'errno' from GDB is sometimes problematic. The > | situation has improved in recent years, though there are still > | scenarios for which "print errno" doesn't work. > | > | The test, gdb.base/check-errno.exp, introduced by this commit, > | ... 174 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 1678a15b694 Automatic date update in version.in > > FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/verylong.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print (x / 4) * 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print +x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print -x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x - 99 + 1 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x / 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 > ... and 1 more entries > > progressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: set variable $item := item > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print $item.started > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: print small > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: print multi > ... and 18 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2028/artifac… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2028/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2028/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_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_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2028/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/984/artifact/art… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

2 years

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

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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(a)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. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | 8 patches in gdb > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/87768 > | 96ab853e5d4 gdb, mi: Skip trampoline functions for the -stack-list-frames command. > | e2c217f4226 gdb: Skip trampoline functions for the return command. > | 687b0373e1e gdb: Skip trampoline functions for the up command. > | 5f8cc05162b gdb: Skip trampoline functions for the finish and reverse-finish commands. > | 287546c56c8 gdb: Skip trampoline frames for the backtrace command. > | ... and 3 more patches in gdb > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 1678a15b694 Automatic date update in version.in > > FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/verylong.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print (x / 4) * 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print +x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print -x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x - 99 + 1 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x / 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 > ... and 1 more entries > > progressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: set variable $item := item > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print $item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print item.started > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: ptype multi > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: ptype small > ... and 18 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2026/artifac… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2026/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2026/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_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_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2026/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/984/artifact/art… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

2 years

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

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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(a)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. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | 4 patches in gdb > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/87792 > | 81f55c5f65e gdb: Add new remote packet to check if address is tagged > | c72332af687 gdb: aarch64: Remove MTE address checking from memtag_matches_p > | d1ba7d95516 gdb: aarch64: Move MTE address check out of set_memtag > | 9769943c7d4 gdb: aarch64: Remove MTE address checking from get_memtag > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 1678a15b694 Automatic date update in version.in > > FAIL: 7 regressions: 16 progressions > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/verylong.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print (x / 4) * 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print +x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print -x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x - 99 + 1 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x / 2 > FAIL: gdb.ada/verylong.exp: print x = 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 > ... and 1 more entries > > progressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: print $item.started > FAIL: gdb.ada/convvar_comp.exp: set variable $item := item > > Running gdb:gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: ptype small > FAIL: gdb.ada/enum_idx_packed.exp: scenario=minimal: print multi_multi(2) > ... and 18 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2027/artifac… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2027/artifac… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2027/artifac… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_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_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2027/artifac… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/984/artifact/art… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

2 years

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 28 Mar

by Peter Maydell

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 to the wrong EL - noticed a minor GIC bug where HPPIR reads weren't honouring the interrupt-group-disable bits; sent a patch - reviewed the latest STM32L4x5 UART patchset -- PMM

2 years

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

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

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_notify(a)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(a)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-1181 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In CI config tcwg_bmk-code_speed-cpu2017rate/gnu-aarch64-master-O3 after: > > | commit gcc-14-9157-gff442719cdb > | Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford(a)arm.com> > | Date: Fri Feb 23 14:12:55 2024 +0000 > | > | aarch64: Spread out FPR usage between RA regions [PR113613] > | > | early-ra already had code to do regrename-style "broadening" > | of the allocation, to promote scheduling freedom. However, > | the pass divides the function into allocation regions > | and this broadening only worked within a single region. > | This meant that if a basic block contained one subblock > | ... 30 lines of the commit log omitted. > > the following benchmarks slowed down by more than 3%: > - slowed down by 23% - 549.fotonik3d_r - from 16467 to 20213 perf samples > the following hot functions slowed down by more than 15% (but their benchmarks slowed down by less than 3%): > - slowed down by 88% - 549.fotonik3d_r:[.] __material_mod_MOD_mat_updatee - from 4373 to 8204 perf samples > > The configuration of this build is: > Below reproducer instructions can be used to re-build both "first_bad" and "last_good" cross-toolchains used in this bisection. Naturally, the scripts will fail when triggerring benchmarking jobs if you don\'t have access to Linaro TCWG CI. > > Configuration: > - Benchmark: SPEC CPU2017 > - Toolchain: GCC + Glibc + GNU Linker > - Version: all components were built from their tip of trunk > - Target: aarch64-linux-gnu > - Compiler flags: O3 > - Hardware: NVidia TX1 4x Cortex-A57 > > This benchmarking CI is work-in-progress, and we welcome feedback and suggestions at linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org . In our improvement plans is to add support for SPEC CPU2017 benchmarks and provide "perf report/annotate" data behind these reports. > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bmk-code_speed-cpu2017rate--gnu-aarch64-mast… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bmk-code_speed-cpu2017rate--gnu-aarch64-mast… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > > Full commit : https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ff442719cdb64c9df9d069af88e90d51be… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_bmk-code_speed-cpu2017rate > ** gnu-aarch64-master-O3 > *** slowed down by 23% - 549.fotonik3d_r > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gcc/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bmk-code_speed-cpu2017rate--gnu-aarch64-mast…

2 years

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 22 Mar

by Peter Maydell

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 them to work through still - reviewed a patchset adding nucleo-g071rb (an STM32G0 based board) -- PMM

2 years, 1 month

LLVM buildbot clang-aarch64-full-2stage

by orlando.hyams＠sony.com

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 this small PR https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/pull/139. I can see the bot is currently failing now too (https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/179/builds/9681). I haven't looked at it closely but given the same tests are failing in a similar way (a different bitcode error from LLD), I imagine that might also be fixed by my llvm-zorg pull request above? Please can someone look at the llvm-zorg pull request when you have a spare moment? I have my LLVM change that caused the initial failure reverted in the meantime. Thanks, Orlando

2 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain