On Sat, Jan 9, 2021, at 5:09 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 13:27, Daniel Engel <lib...@danielengel.com> wrote: > > > > -- snip -- > > > > To reiterate what I said above, I intend to push forward and incorporate > > your current recommendations plus any further feedback I may get. I > > expect you to say that this doesn't merit inclusion yet, but I'd rather > > spend the time while I have it. > > > > I'll post a patch series for review within the next day or so. > > Here are the results of the validation of your latest version > (20210105): > https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/r11-5993-g159b0bd9ce263dfb791eff5133b0ca0207201c84-cortex-m0-fplib-20210105.patch/report-build-info.html
Thanks for this. > "BIG-REGR" just means the regression report is large enough that it's > provided in compressed form to avoid overloading the browser. > > So it really seems your patch introduces regressions in arm*linux* configs. > For the 2 arm-none-eabi configs which show regressions (cortex-m0 and > cortex-m3), the logs seem to indicate some tests timed out, and it's > possible the server used was overloaded. Looks like I added _divdi3 in LIB1ASMFUNCS with too much scope. So the C implementation gets locked out of the build. On EABI, _divdi3 is renamed as __aeabi_ldivmod, so both symbols are always found. On GNU EABI, that doesn't happen. It should be a trivial fix, and I think there are a couple more similar. I'll integrate this change in the patch series. > The same applies to the 3 aarch64*elf cases, where the regressions > seem only caused by timed out; there's no reason your patch would have > an impact on aarch64. > (there 5 configs were tested on the same machine, so overload is indeed > likely). > > I didn't check why all the ubsan tests now seem to fail, they are in > the "unstable" category because in the past some of them had some > randomness. > I do not see such noise in trunk validation though. I tried looking up a few of them to analyze. Couldn't find the names in the logs (e.g. "pr95810"). Are you sure they actually failed, or just didn't run? Regression reports say "ignored". > Thanks, > > Christophe > Thanks again, Daniel
