On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:20, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 11:52 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 04:21, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 11:01 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 18:15, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches > > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > > > > Pushed to trunk as r14-3481-g99a3fcb8ff0bf2. > > > > Hi David, > > > > It seems the new tests FAIL on arm for LTO bootstrap config: > > > > https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_bootstrap_check--master-arm-check_bootstrap_lto-build/263/artifact/artifacts/06-check_regression/fails.sum/*view*/ > > > > > > Sorry about this. > > > > > > Looking at e.g. the console.log.xz, I just see the status of the > > > failing tests. > > > > > > Is there an easy way to get at the stderr from the tests without > > > rerunning this? > > > > > > Otherwise, I'd appreciate help with reproducing this. > > Hi David, > > I have attached make check log for the failing tests. > > To reproduce, I configured and built gcc with following options on > > armv8 machine: > > ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --with-float=hard > > --with-fpu=neon-fp-armv8 --with-mode=thumb --with-arch=armv8-a > > --disable-werror --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto > > make -j$(nproc) > > Thanks. > > Looks a lot like PR analyzer/110483, which I'm working on now (sorry!) > > What's the endianness of the host? Little endian. It was built natively (host == target) on armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf. > > > Specifically, the pertinent part of the log is: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/out-of-bounds-diagram-17.c (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > ┌─────┬─────┬────┬────┬────┐┌─────┬─────┬─────┐ > │ [1] │ [1] │[1] │[1] │[1] ││ [1] │ [1] │ [1] │ > ├─────┼─────┼────┼────┼────┤├─────┼─────┼─────┤ > │ ' ' │ 'w' │'o' │'r' │'l' ││ 'd' │ '!' │ NUL │ > ├─────┴─────┴────┴────┴────┴┴─────┴─────┴─────┤ > │ string literal (type: 'char[8]') │ > └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ > │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ > v v v v v v v v > ┌─────┬────────────────────────────────────────┬────┐┌─────────────────┐ > │ [0] │ ... │[9] ││ │ > ├─────┴────────────────────────────────────────┴────┤│after valid range│ > │ 'buf' (type: 'char[10]') ││ │ > └───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘└─────────────────┘ > ├─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┤├────────┬────────┤ > │ │ > ╭─────────┴────────╮ ╭─────────┴─────────╮ > │capacity: 10 bytes│ │overflow of 3 bytes│ > ╰──────────────────╯ ╰───────────────────╯ > > where the issue seems to be all those [1], which are meant to be index > [0], [1], [2], etc. Oh OK, thanks for the clarification!
Thanks, Prathamesh > > > Dave
