From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=/Fpy=5B=klomp.org=mark@sourceware.org>
Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820E03858D1E;
	Wed,  4 Jan 2023 11:07:42 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 820E03858D1E
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org
Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A0BBC30067D2; Wed,  4 Jan 2023 12:07:41 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 12:07:41 +0100
From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com>
Cc: Matthias Klose <matthias.klose@canonical.com>,
	Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>, binutils@sourceware.org,
	buildbot@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: The 2.40 branch has been created
Message-ID: <20230104110741.GC9735@gnu.wildebeest.org>
References: <87mt739186.fsf@redhat.com>
 <35a47bed-36af-6f8a-55a6-9cef247f9840@canonical.com>
 <e6fcc285-becc-5816-db4a-36e37e8c08cd@arm.com>
 <20230102230528.GA6490@gnu.wildebeest.org>
 <2351b01b-ace6-3028-ece5-0f47caf21950@arm.com>
 <20230104003557.GB9735@gnu.wildebeest.org>
 <941388e7-8e4d-0bbf-5cc6-249fe1dd8c5f@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <941388e7-8e4d-0bbf-5cc6-249fe1dd8c5f@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3032.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <buildbot.sourceware.org>

Hi Christophe,

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:31:50AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >I'll push the following to try the new builders.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I see they are all failing currently ;-)
> I have sent patches for the armhf failures yesterday, so they will
> hopefully become green soon.
> I don't understand why the arm64 ones are failing, is it because
> there is one linker test with XPASS? (I didn't notice any
> "unexpected failure" in the .sum summaries)

Yes, the "XPASS: Run pr19719 fun undefined" is unexpected and so fails
make check.

Note that same XPASS on binutils-fedora-arm64, but that also has an
extra FAIL: Build pr26094-1

Cheers,

Mark