* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:11 ` Paolo Carlini
@ 2005-07-06 14:18 ` Christian Joensson
2005-07-06 14:18 ` Paolo Carlini
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Christian Joensson @ 2005-07-06 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Carlini; +Cc: Eric Botcazou, Mark Mitchell, gcc
On 7/6/05, Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers....
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
> >>
> >>other than that, looks pretty fine.
> >>
> >>
> >Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will have to say
> >whether they are really regressions (the testsuite harness has changed).
> >
> Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> *-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
> However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can
> be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata to a
> defect of the testsuite harness, to a code generation bug, to a latent
> bug in the generic code of the library exposed only by that target, and
> only now.
let me roll back binutils to and rebootstrap... or would you say I
could very well wait for 4.0.1 and test that?
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:11 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 14:18 ` Christian Joensson
@ 2005-07-06 14:18 ` Paolo Carlini
[not found] ` <5460e3330507060722723787a0@mail.gmail.com>
2005-07-06 14:22 ` Eric Botcazou
2005-07-06 14:46 ` Matthias Klose
3 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Carlini @ 2005-07-06 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Carlini; +Cc: Eric Botcazou, Christian Joensson, Mark Mitchell, gcc
Paolo Carlini wrote:
>However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can
>be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata...
>
Probably we can exclude at least this first possibility: if I understand
well, everything related to glibc has not changed on the machine.
Paolo.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:11 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 14:18 ` Christian Joensson
2005-07-06 14:18 ` Paolo Carlini
@ 2005-07-06 14:22 ` Eric Botcazou
2005-07-06 14:32 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 14:46 ` Matthias Klose
3 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eric Botcazou @ 2005-07-06 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Carlini; +Cc: gcc, Christian Joensson, Mark Mitchell
> Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> *-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
Is the
FAIL: abi_check
failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt be
somehow updated?
> However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can
> be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata to a
> defect of the testsuite harness, to a code generation bug, to a latent
> bug in the generic code of the library exposed only by that target, and
> only now.
Agreed, but were these tests simply run with the 4.0.0 testsuite?
--
Eric Botcazou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:22 ` Eric Botcazou
@ 2005-07-06 14:32 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 18:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Carlini @ 2005-07-06 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Botcazou; +Cc: gcc, Christian Joensson, Mark Mitchell, Jakub Jelinek
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
>>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
>>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
>>
>>
>Is the
>
>FAIL: abi_check
>
>failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt be
>somehow updated?
>
>
Yes, probably we should concentrate on that failure. It's the most
strange, probably, because Benjamin and Jakub (certainly a Sparc expert)
updated the sparc-linux baseline around mid of June. Maybe we should
involve Jakub too in the discussion, at least to confirm that on his
sparc-linux machines abi_check doesn't fail.
Jakub?
Paolo.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:32 ` Paolo Carlini
@ 2005-07-06 18:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
2005-07-06 18:41 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 18:42 ` Christian Joensson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2005-07-06 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Carlini; +Cc: Eric Botcazou, gcc, Christian Joensson, Mark Mitchell
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 04:33:43PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> >>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> >>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
> >>
> >>
> >Is the
> >
> >FAIL: abi_check
> >
> >failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt be
> >somehow updated?
> >
> >
> Yes, probably we should concentrate on that failure. It's the most
> strange, probably, because Benjamin and Jakub (certainly a Sparc expert)
> updated the sparc-linux baseline around mid of June. Maybe we should
> involve Jakub too in the discussion, at least to confirm that on his
> sparc-linux machines abi_check doesn't fail.
The best would be if Christian could post (bzip2ed) readelf -Ws of
the libstdc++.so that fails the abi_check.
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 18:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2005-07-06 18:41 ` Paolo Carlini
2005-07-06 18:42 ` Christian Joensson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Carlini @ 2005-07-06 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc, Christian Joensson
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>The best would be if Christian could post (bzip2ed) readelf -Ws of
>the libstdc++.so that fails the abi_check.
>
>
In fact, the excerpt from libstdc++.log that he sent privately doesn't
show the "check-abi Summary": as far as I know, abi_check can be
segfaulting (as is apparently happening for the other failures that he
reported).
Paolo.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 18:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
2005-07-06 18:41 ` Paolo Carlini
@ 2005-07-06 18:42 ` Christian Joensson
2005-07-06 18:58 ` Eric Botcazou
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Christian Joensson @ 2005-07-06 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: Paolo Carlini, Eric Botcazou, gcc, Mark Mitchell
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]
On 7/6/05, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 04:33:43PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >
> > >>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> > >>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> > >>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Is the
> > >
> > >FAIL: abi_check
> > >
> > >failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt be
> > >somehow updated?
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, probably we should concentrate on that failure. It's the most
> > strange, probably, because Benjamin and Jakub (certainly a Sparc expert)
> > updated the sparc-linux baseline around mid of June. Maybe we should
> > involve Jakub too in the discussion, at least to confirm that on his
> > sparc-linux machines abi_check doesn't fail.
>
> The best would be if Christian could post (bzip2ed) readelf -Ws of
> the libstdc++.so that fails the abi_check.
sure, attached, this is with HJ's binutils-2.16.90.0.3-1 for linux
tarball test release rpm built for corona.
again, would you rather I backed off to a binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5?
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
[-- Attachment #2: libstdc++.so.6.0.5-readelf-Ws.log.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/x-bzip2, Size: 65020 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 18:42 ` Christian Joensson
@ 2005-07-06 18:58 ` Eric Botcazou
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eric Botcazou @ 2005-07-06 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Joensson; +Cc: gcc, Jakub Jelinek, Paolo Carlini, Mark Mitchell
> sure, attached, this is with HJ's binutils-2.16.90.0.3-1 for linux
> tarball test release rpm built for corona.
>
> again, would you rather I backed off to a binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5?
I think it would be better to use Binutils releases when testing GCC releases,
because that's what the users are supposed to do. Binutils 2.16.x work fine
on SPARC/Solaris so I presume they would work just fine on Linux too.
--
Eric Botcazou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3
2005-07-06 14:11 ` Paolo Carlini
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-06 14:22 ` Eric Botcazou
@ 2005-07-06 14:46 ` Matthias Klose
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Klose @ 2005-07-06 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Carlini; +Cc: Eric Botcazou, Christian Joensson, Mark Mitchell, gcc
Paolo Carlini writes:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers....
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
> >>
> >>other than that, looks pretty fine.
> >>
> >>
> >Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will have to say
> >whether they are really regressions (the testsuite harness has changed).
> >
> Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> *-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
> However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can
> be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata to a
> defect of the testsuite harness, to a code generation bug, to a latent
> bug in the generic code of the library exposed only by that target, and
> only now.
I don't see these regression on Debian unstable, not exactly built
from the snapshot, but from CVS at the same date. Test results at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00280.html
However, there are 8 gfortran regressions, compared to 4.0.0:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -O3 -g execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90 -Os execution test
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread