status of GCC 3.1 integration testing on ia64-linux

status of GCC 3.1 integration testing on ia64-linux

[Janis Johnson]

Steve Christiansen and I have been testing the GCC 3.1 prerelease on
ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.  Our automated nightly testing does the
following:

  get CVS updates for the 3.1 branch
  bootstrap and test GCC (C, C++, and Fortran 77 only; Objective C and
    Java are included in a 3.1 bootstrap and test on a separate system
    so that Java build breakage doesn't prevent our other testing)
  build the 2.4.18 Linux kernel
  boot the new kernel
    (the rest of the testing runs on the newly-built kernel)
  build and test Blitz
  build and test Boost (starting tonight)
  build emacs
  build and test FTensor
  build and test LAPACK
  build Qt
  build and test gdb
  build and test glibc (starting tonight)

Each application is built with the optimizations that are normally used
for that package.  I've run some of them with other optimizations also.

Current problems:

  One of the LAPACK BLAS tests started failing to build a couple of days
  ago, as reported in PR optimization/6177.

  FTensor built with -O3 gets wrong answers in 11 tests, as reported in
  PR target/6137.  FTensor doesn't build with earlier versions of GCC so
  I don't know if this is a regression from 3.0.4.

  Boost fails test libs/integer/integer_test.cpp.  That test also fails
  with GCC 3.0.4, so it's not a regression, and 3.1 passes the other 3
  tests that fail with 3.0.4.  I haven't looked into this failure.

  Boost failed parts of the build because it includes
  /usr/include/asm/atomic.h, which on ia64-linux uses "new" as a local
  variable name.  Gary Hade has sent a fix to the linux-ia64 mailing
  list.

  Occasionally I decide to try building Pooma but then get discouraged
  when I see that it doesn't come with a relevant configuration file.
  If someone has a config file for use with GCC 3.1 I'd like to see it.

I'm extremely impressed at how quickly regressions are being fixed.

Janis

Re: status of GCC 3.1 integration testing on ia64-linux

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Janis" == Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com> writes:

Janis> Steve Christiansen and I have been testing the GCC 3.1 prerelease on
Janis> ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.  Our automated nightly testing does the
Janis> following:

Janis>   bootstrap and test GCC (C, C++, and Fortran 77 only; Objective C and
Janis>     Java are included in a 3.1 bootstrap and test on a separate system
Janis>     so that Java build breakage doesn't prevent our other testing)

Do you mean some transient java build breakage?  Or is there something
wrong right now?  If so, what is it?  Is there a PR?
My understanding is that right now gcj and libgcj build and test fine
on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Tom

Re: status of GCC 3.1 integration testing on ia64-linux

[Janis Johnson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Janis" == Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> Janis> Steve Christiansen and I have been testing the GCC 3.1 prerelease on
> Janis> ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.  Our automated nightly testing does the
> Janis> following:
> 
> Janis>   bootstrap and test GCC (C, C++, and Fortran 77 only; Objective C and
> Janis>     Java are included in a 3.1 bootstrap and test on a separate system
> Janis>     so that Java build breakage doesn't prevent our other testing)
> 
> Do you mean some transient java build breakage?  Or is there something
> wrong right now?  If so, what is it?  Is there a PR?
> My understanding is that right now gcj and libgcj build and test fine
> on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Yes, I meant transient breakage; everything is fine right now.  None of
our additional testing uses Java, though, so we don't bother to build
it on this system.  Steve has another system where he does nightly builds
of everything and sends the results to gcc-testresults.

Janis

Re: status of GCC 3.1 integration testing on ia64-linux

[Steve Christiansen]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:35:18PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Do you mean some transient java build breakage?  Or is there something
> > wrong right now?  If so, what is it?  Is there a PR?
> > My understanding is that right now gcj and libgcj build and test fine
> > on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> 
> Yes, I meant transient breakage; everything is fine right now.  None of
> our additional testing uses Java, though, so we don't bother to build
> it on this system.  Steve has another system where he does nightly builds
> of everything and sends the results to gcc-testresults.
> 
> Janis

"Everything" means what you get without specifying enable-languages, so
that doesn't include Ada at this time.

Regarding test results, when the bootstrap breaks on ia64 now, my test
system sends nothing to gcc-testresults because "make check" doesn't run.
Would it be better to report "the bootstrap is broken" to gcc-testresults,
or would that be considered too much noise?

Steve