public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "patrick at rivosinc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/111298] New: time-profiler-2.c flaky on glibc RISC-V Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 21:25:56 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-111298-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111298 Bug ID: 111298 Summary: time-profiler-2.c flaky on glibc RISC-V Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: patrick at rivosinc dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 55845 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55845&action=edit Excerpt from the debug log Failures: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 0" 2 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 2" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 3" 1 Observed on at least one of the 7 tested glibc targets ~50/78 times (~65%). Separated out this gives a ~14% chance that a given testsuite run fails. Example where failures change when comparing across a daily-bump commit: https://github.com/patrick-rivos/riscv-gnu-toolchain/issues/290 Observed on all tested targets: rv32gcv-ilp32d rv32gc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs-ilp32d rv32gcv_zicond_zawrs_zbc_zvkng_zvksg_zvbb_zvbc_zicsr_zba_zbb_zbs_zicbom_zicbop_zicboz_zfhmin_zkt-ilp32d rv64gc-lp64d rv64gcv-lp64d rv64gc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs-lp64d rv64gcv_zvbb_zvbc_zvkg_zvkn_zvknc_zvkned_zvkng_zvknha_zvknhb_zvks_zvksc_zvksed_zvksg_zvksh_zvkt-lp64d Not observed using when using newlib. Replicated locally using https://github.com/patrick-rivos/riscv-gnu-toolchain/tree/6feacbc3d00a11a94f1f8fdc7226b4b908462579 ../configure --prefix=$(pwd) --with-arch=rv64gcv --with-abi=lp64 make report-linux -j32 Upstream riscv-gnu-toolchain has the test allowlisted which is likely why nobody has mentioned it before: https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain/blob/master/test/allowlist/gcc/glibc.log#L8-L10 From searching the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/ mailing list (May 1st - September 5th), the only other occurrence is https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-testresults/87zg23qmwp.fsf@Rainer.invalid/ This is likely specific to the risc-v target. I'm guessing that this is likely due to some conflict between time-profiler-1.c and time-profiler-2.c and filing this under testsuite framework issue, but feel free to move it if it's likely caused by a specific component.
next reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 21:25 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-09-05 21:25 patrick at rivosinc dot com [this message] 2023-09-05 21:30 ` [Bug testsuite/111298] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-05 21:54 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com 2023-11-08 14:47 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-27 17:35 ` [Bug testsuite/111298] time-profiler-2.c flaky on glibc RISC-V with qemu pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-111298-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).