On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 22:00, Frank Scheiner <frank.schei...@web.de> wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, Richard, > > On 12.06.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 12/06/24 16:09 +0200, Frank Scheiner wrote: > >> Dear Richard, > >> > >> On 12.06.24 13:01, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> I can find two gcc-testresult postings, one appearantly with LRA > >>> and one without? Both from May: > >>> > >>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-May/816422.html > >>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-May/816346.html > >>> > >>> somehow for example libstdc++ summaries were not merged, it might > >>> be you do not have recent python installed on the system? Or you > >>> didn't use contrib/test_summary to create those mails. > >> > >> No, I did not use contrib/test_summary. But I still have tarballs of > >> both testsuite runs, so could still produce these summaries - I hope? > > > > It looks like the results at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-May/816422.html are > > just what's printed on standard out, including output from 'make -j4' > > so not combined into one set of results. > > That's what it is, yes. > > > It would certainly be better to either get the results from the .sum > > files, or just use the contrib/test_summary script to do that for you. > > Ok, I posted the results as created by contrib/test_summary now: > > 1. non-LRA version on [1] > > 2. LRA version on [2] > > [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817267.html > > [2]: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817268.html
Thanks! These ones are probably due to non-reserved names in glibc or kernel headers: FAIL: 17_intro/names.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/names_pstl.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: experimental/names.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) The errors for all three are probably the same and should be decipherable from libstdc++.log which will show which names defined as macros in names.cc are clashing with names in system headers. > > The difference 2 compared to 1 is attached. > > >> Do I need to run this on the host that did the testing or can I run it > >> on my NFS server where the tarballs are actually located, too? > > > > I don't think the script cares where it's run, it just looks at text > > files which should work on any host. > > It looks like it worked fine. :-) > > Cheers, > Frank >
