From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (wildebeest.demon.nl [212.238.236.112]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD25A3939C34 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:52:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CD25A3939C34 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: from deer0x15.wildebeest.org (deer0x15.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D50F8302FBB1; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:52:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for const bool and const float From: Mark Wielaard To: dkm@kataplop.net, gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:52:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <0e8cd730cb7867bd1970b20d99a55f1c@kataplop.net> References: <20210815195526.59273-1-mark@klomp.org> <0e8cd730cb7867bd1970b20d99a55f1c@kataplop.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: gcc-rust mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:52:15 -0000 Hi Marc, On Mon, 2021-08-16 at 07:48 +0000, dkm@kataplop.net wrote: > Looks like tests are not OK, at least in the github action. Are you talking about this patch (which I cannot find on github) or "Use builtin bool instead of creating new bool types for ComparisonExpr"? On github I can only see that one has a red cross which says "build-and-check" but doesn't give any more information except that "Check regressions" failed, but without any logs ("Sign in for the full log view"). > Can't test but maybe you can confirm this issue ? > > # of unexpected failures 14 On my setup, Debian arm64 with gcc 10.2, for both patches the newly added testcase fails without the patch and succeeds with the patch. I'll try to find some other setup. What is the configuration for the machine where you see the new unexpected failures (and with which patch)? Thanks, Mark