Resending because I forgot to avoid the disclaimer and hence my email didn't go to the gcc-patches list.
On 09/09/19 21:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks for doing this. >> Thanks for the suggestions, I have updated the patch accordingly. >> Boostrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. >> Richi, does the patch look OK to you ? > Hi, > Bootstrap+test passes for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. > On x86_64, there's a "strange" failure of c-c++-common/builtins.c, log shows: > > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/pr86753-v2-3/gcc/gcc/test > FAIL: c-c++-common/builtins.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/prathamesh.kulkarni/gnu-toolchain/gcc/pr86753-v2-3/gcc/gcc/test > Just FYI I have seen this error come from a restriction in DejaGNU itself. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-05/msg00066.html The reply to that email mentions that this restriction was removed in later DejaGNU versions. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-05/msg00070.html If you see the snippet mentioned in the first email (don't continue if you've already read greater than 512000 bytes of output) in your DejaGNU install (remote.exp file), and the error messages from the "-Wc++-compat" test are greater than 512000 bytes then it's likely the problem is because of DejaGNU rather than your code. If that is the case, then a test is to remove the `if` mentioned in the first email and re-trying the regression test. (i.e. replace if { [string length $output] < 512000 } { exp_continue -continue_timer } with exp_continue -continue_timer in the "local_exec" procedure from $DEJAGNU_INSTALL/remote.exp) > Which shouldn't really happen since the test doesn't seem relevant to patch, > and only passes -O2 which shouldn't enable the vectorizer ? Manually > testing it results in PASS with: > make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=builtins.c" > Would it be OK to ignore the FAIL during reg-test ? > This also matches the symptoms of this DejaGNU restriction -- it only comes up when the OS read returned not all the output from the test, and that happens a lot more when there are many parallel tests running. > Thanks, > Prathamesh >> >> Thanks, >> Prathamesh >>> >>> Richard
