From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108813 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2018 22:19:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 108785 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2018 22:19:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=gcc-cvs, gcccvs, pre-existing, comparing X-HELO: mail-io1-f65.google.com Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (HELO mail-io1-f65.google.com) (209.85.166.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:19:19 +0000 Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id n11-v6so6044325iob.6 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jv8fsydAztZdTG7FcRBwPJp71HRgWZzAGyI0r9NkDt8=; b=VJPknzlO5F+71f9sB1zgYP2Y05IJgeMsTWE4qgcG8PIzMAKLRk03DdEUo/plPNru4g bRqq9fABo40gIpUGnaSDuiVduB9Z5IzBekG2LMyIviJ+d4UP1xV5AXFiYnJ9DkqVdKm5 Hsf+ZxnJt1Ntq5bWsLTXPlMXxchSaJEdNzK5a0VEYz5rhsBrjO9XnWAXcRQAS1RBUng1 qpS7kwL9WsRRkAsuilK8/F8P+M4btNGYp9NxBA508260mIm3umvw3nsvF7kfxGTTWS/x HOM9e86TukvzXoAJ0sx58M8ExFyrNsBMHffWtA8uO4XEOVzj9raM02XbtNI8fuSWzDyK eHTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4392479b-514c-495a-3d5c-15b523b18f97@gmail.com> <9d341128-5aec-e760-88ac-c243724d40e1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d341128-5aec-e760-88ac-c243724d40e1@gmail.com> From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Tests Failing on x86_64_gnu To: nick Cc: gcc-help Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 CCing the list again. On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 22:13, nick wrote: > > > > On 2018-10-29 5:45 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 21:40, nick wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2018-10-29 4:44 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> Please reply to the mailing list, not just to me. > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry thought it was sent to the list. > >> > >> Nick > >>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:14, nick wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2018-10-29 3:31 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 18:05, nick wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Greetings, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just build,configuring and ran the tests from the upstream gcc git repo like this: > >>>>>> mdkir odbjir > >>>>>> cd obdjir > >>>>>> $PWD/../gcc/configure --prefix=$HOME/GCC-deve > >>>>>> make -j8 > >>>>>> make bootstrapq > >>>>> > >>>>> This is redundant, just saying "make" does the same thing. > >>>>> > >>>>>> make -k check > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Those are the steps from the offical docs unless I am missing a step i.e. does > >>>>>> make install need to be done or not? > >>>>> > >>>>> Done for what? It needs to be done to install the compiler you just > >>>>> built, but not to test it. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Don't know if this a reported issue or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> You haven't said what the issue is, so we can't say. > >>>>> > >>>> Jonathan, > >>>> The issues is after the above commands including make -k check it fails the tests on > >>>> on a Ubuntu 18.04, x86_64_gnu based system for the mainline git repo. > > > > Which tests? All of them? More than half of them? You're really not > > giving us much to go on here. > > > > You can compare your results with other people's results for recent > > trunk builds at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-10/ > > > > For recent x86_64-pc-linux-gnu builds I see about 0.1% of tests > > failing (a few for the compiler, and a few for libstdc++). > > > > It's not unusual for there to be a few failures at this point in the > > development cycle. If you want a stable compiler with no issues, don't > > use the development trunk. > > > > Sure I was aware of that and seems so after checking the build logs, thanks for those. > Anyhow my last question is I fixed a bug and was wondering if even with failing tests > before the patch was applied i.e. a clean gcc tree will it be able to be merged or > not as that's the standard I was aware of for patches. If tests are failing without your patch, you don't need to worry about them. You're looking for changes caused by your patch, not pre-existing failures. This is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing "You must also perform regression tests to ensure that your patch does not break anything else. Typically, this means comparing post-patch test results to pre-patch results by testing twice or comparing with recent posts to the gcc-testresults list." If there had to be zero test failures before any patch is committed then there wouldn't be dozens of commits per day: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2018-10/