On 6/13/24 4:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
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.
And wouldn't failure of these imply that the headers are either ancient
with some kind of pollution or that there's a ia64 specific goof in the
headers? These tests work on the other linux targets AFAIK.
jeff
