On 2/8/21 11:09 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 08/02/2021 10.16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 2/8/21 6:54 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2021 21.05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Travis-CI seems to have enforced memory limit on containers,
>>>> and the 'GCC check-tcg' job started to fail [*]:
>>>>
>>>> [2041/3679] Compiling C++ object
>>>> libcommon.fa.p/disas_nanomips.cpp.o
>>>> FAILED: libcommon.fa.p/disas_nanomips.cpp.o
>>>> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
>>>> {standard input}:577781: Warning: end of file not at end of a line;
>>>> newline inserted
>>>> {standard input}:577882: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.lvl35769'
>>>> {standard input}: Error: open CFI at the end of file; missing
>>>> .cfi_endproc directive
>>>> c++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
>>>> compilation terminated.
>>>
>>> If disabling C++ "fixes" the issue, ok ...
>>> Otherwise, we should maybe rather limit the amount of parallel jobs
>>> there instead? (i.e. compiling with "make -j1" in the worst case?)
>>
>> I exhausted my Travis-CI credits (frankly I don't plan to pay for it
>> with my own money).
>
> Yeah, same for me.
>
>> I'm happy with any patch (directly removing this job if it is not cared
>> of?) as long it silences the failure reports we get on IRC on each
>> merge.
>
> Ok, I wanted to send a PR with my other Travis->Gitlab patches today or
> tomorrow anyway, so I could also throw in your patch here to try to
> silence these failures (unless Alex wants to take this patch through his
> tree within the next days anyway)... then let's see whether disabling
> C++ is enough, and if not, we can still try my suggestion instead.
FYI there is a v3 (20210207121239.2288530-1-f4...@amsat.org) fixing
how AArch64 is written:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg780124.html
OTOH we don't have any job explicitly disabling C++, right? (Not
sure we want one, just wondering).
Thanks,
Phil.
