[Bug ada/52219] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[Bug ada/52219] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

             Bug #: 52219
           Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:   cxg2001
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: ada
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: dominiq@lps.ens.fr
                CC: ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr, iains@gcc.gnu.org
              Host: x86_64-apple-darwin10
            Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10
             Build: x86_64-apple-darwin10


The test cxg2001 has started to fail between revisions 184022 (OK) and 184112
on x86_64-apple-darwin10, but not on powerpc-apple-darwin9.

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 17:16:53 UTC ---
OK on x86_64-darwin10 and i686-darwin9 @ 184085 ...
... test is running @184140 on i686-darwin9.

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-02-12
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 20:17:54 UTC ---
x86-64/Linux is still clean (as of revision 184143).  What's in the log file?

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 21:05:11 UTC ---
acats & gnat is clean on x86_64-darwin10 @184143 (and, I think, 184127).
perhaps a temporary glitch?

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2012-02-12 21:16:10 UTC ---
> What's in the log file?

splitting /opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/cxg/cxg2001.a into:
   cxg2001.adb
BUILD cxg2001.adb
gnatmake --GCC="/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/" -gnatws -O2
-I/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support cxg2001.adb -largs
--GCC="/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/"
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc -c -B/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/ -gnatws -O2
-I/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support cxg2001.adb
gnatbind -I/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/support -x cxg2001.ali
gnatlink cxg2001.ali -O2 --GCC=/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc
-B/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/
RUN cxg2001
^M
FAIL:   cxg2001

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2012-02-12 21:49:46 UTC ---
> acats & gnat is clean on x86_64-darwin10 @184143 (and, I think, 184127).
> perhaps a temporary glitch?

Apparently!-(the tests pass without failure @184143 when run with check-ada,
full test for tonight).
Bugs that pops up and disappears are quite unpleasant.

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2012-02-19 15:20:14 UTC ---
cxg2001 has passed my last tests without failure. What is it supposed to test?
Is it in the same class as Thread_Sleep_2 in libjava or thread_leak_test.c in
boehm-gc for which I got ~6 failures out of ~90 regtests?

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-19 15:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> cxg2001 has passed my last tests without failure.

likewise on all my recent tests on both patched & un-patched trees.

I find that the acats tests are quite likely to exhibit random fails on D9 and
D10 for parallel tests on loaded machines, but I associate that with the
test-environment (repeating make check-ada has always come up clean - except
for cases with real bugs).  Which is different from the libjava/boehm-gc cases
which always exhibit the marginal fails even on a single process test cycle.

====

... the test looks like it is doing some FP work - so not likely to be subject
to the two following phenomena:

> Is it in the same class as Thread_Sleep_2 in libjava

this randomly fails for a known reason (OS bug), we should probably ask for the
Java to be changed so that the timeout has a suitable capture range (it doesn't
look like the bug will be fixed in D9 or D10).

 or thread_leak_test.c in
> boehm-gc for which I got ~6 failures out of ~90 regtests?

this (I think) is related to operating close to the limit of available stack
(but that's unconfirmed and on the TODO to investigate).

=====

.. although, it's not impossible that either effect could manifest in
cxg2001.a, it seems unlikely.  I'd be more inclined to blame expect/tcl/dejgnu
+ system load.  Unless you can repeat the failure.

[Bug ada/52219] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: cxg2001

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-19 15:39:01 UTC ---
All ACATS tests come with a description in the file.  Given the contents of the
log file, this was probably an external glitch.