LTO and other test failures on trunk

LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Martin Sebor]

I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.

The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:

/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link, 
-flto -std=c++11

Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.

Thanks
Martin

    FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
!  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
    FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
    FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
!  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
!  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
!  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
!  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[David Malcolm]

On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:19 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
> 
> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link, 
> -flto -std=c++11
> 
> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
> 
> Thanks
> Martin
> 
>     FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
> !  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>     FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>     FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
> !  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)

I don't know about the LTO issues, but what are the jit.dg failures
that you're seeing?

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Martin Sebor]

On 06/11/2018 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:19 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
>> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
>> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
>> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
>>
>> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
>>
>> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
>> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link,
>> -flto -std=c++11
>>
>> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
>> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
>> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Martin
>>
>>     FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
>> !  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>>     FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>>     FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
>> !  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
>
> I don't know about the LTO issues, but what are the jit.dg failures
> that you're seeing?

The jit failures look like they're all caused by errors like
the one below:

FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe killed: 11694 exp5 0 0 CHILDKILLED 
SIGSEGV {segmentation violation}

Besides those above, there are a large number of others.  I didn't
know those we jit tests until I looked at the jit log.  The full
list is below.

!  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
!  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
!  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-assembler.c.s (1: +1)
!  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.so (1: +1)
!  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (2: +2)
!  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-object.c.o (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-accessing-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-accessing-union.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-alignment.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-alignment.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-arith-overflow.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-array-as-pointer.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-arrays.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-autovectorize.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-benchmark.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-calling-external-function.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-calling-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-combination.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-compile-to-object.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-compound-assignment.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-constants.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-debug-strings.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-dot-product.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-empty.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-error-array-bounds.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-mismatch.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-too-many.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-error-pr63969-missing-driver.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-expressions.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-extra-options.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-factorial.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-factorial-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-fibonacci.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-functions.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-hello-world.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-linked-list.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-long-names.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-nested-contexts.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-nested-loops.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-operator-overloading.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-pr66700-observing-write-through-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-pr66779.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-quadratic.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-quadratic.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-reading-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-returning-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-string-literal.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-sum-of-squares.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-switch.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-switch.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-threads.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-types.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-using-global.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-validly-unreachable-block.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-vector-rvalues.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-vector-types.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: test-volatile.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: toyvm.cc.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: toyvm.c.exe (1: +1)
!  FAIL: verify-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)

Martin

PS I run the test suite on tor with -j96 in case that helps.
I've been using -j96 for at least a couple of GCC releases
with no issues.  The only thing that might have changed is
that lately there is sometimes another parallel build running
on the machine quite often.  It runs as root so I don't know
for sure who it belongs to.  My guess is some automation.

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Jeff Law]

On 06/11/2018 01:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:19 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
>>> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
>>> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
>>> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
>>>
>>> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link,
>>> -flto -std=c++11
>>>
>>> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
>>> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
>>> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>     FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
>>> !  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>>>     FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>>>     FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
>>> !  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
>>
>> I don't know about the LTO issues, but what are the jit.dg failures
>> that you're seeing?
> 
> The jit failures look like they're all caused by errors like
> the one below:
> 
> FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe killed: 11694 exp5 0 0 CHILDKILLED
> SIGSEGV {segmentation violation}
> 
> Besides those above, there are a large number of others.  I didn't
> know those we jit tests until I looked at the jit log.  The full
> list is below.
> 
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-assembler.c.s (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.so (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (2: +2)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-object.c.o (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-accessing-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-accessing-union.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-alignment.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-alignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-arith-overflow.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-array-as-pointer.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-arrays.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-autovectorize.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-benchmark.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-calling-external-function.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-calling-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-combination.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-object.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compound-assignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-constants.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-debug-strings.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-dot-product.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-empty.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-array-bounds.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-mismatch.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-too-many.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-pr63969-missing-driver.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-expressions.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-extra-options.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-factorial.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-factorial-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-fibonacci.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-functions.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-hello-world.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-linked-list.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-long-names.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-nested-contexts.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-nested-loops.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-operator-overloading.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-pr66700-observing-write-through-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-pr66779.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-quadratic.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-quadratic.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-reading-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-returning-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-string-literal.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-sum-of-squares.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-switch.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-switch.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-threads.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-types.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-using-global.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-validly-unreachable-block.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-vector-rvalues.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-vector-types.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-volatile.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: toyvm.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: toyvm.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: verify-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
> 
> Martin
> 
> PS I run the test suite on tor with -j96 in case that helps.
> I've been using -j96 for at least a couple of GCC releases
> with no issues.  The only thing that might have changed is
> that lately there is sometimes another parallel build running
> on the machine quite often.  It runs as root so I don't know
> for sure who it belongs to.  My guess is some automation.
tor/torsion?  That's my tester running bootstraps inside chroots for
things like m68k-linux, alpha-linux and the like.  I *still* need to su
to myself in the scripts that run within the chroot, but haven't gotten
around to fixing that yet.


Jeff
> 

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Martin Sebor]

David,

Have you been able to reproduce the jit test failures below on
tor?  Is there some information I can get you from my builds to
help you debug it?

Thanks
Martin

On 06/11/2018 01:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:19 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
>>> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
>>> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
>>> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
>>>
>>> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
>>> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link,
>>> -flto -std=c++11
>>>
>>> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
>>> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
>>> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>     FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
>>> !  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>>>     FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>>>     FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
>>> !  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
>>> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
>>
>> I don't know about the LTO issues, but what are the jit.dg failures
>> that you're seeing?
>
> The jit failures look like they're all caused by errors like
> the one below:
>
> FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe killed: 11694 exp5 0 0 CHILDKILLED
> SIGSEGV {segmentation violation}
>
> Besides those above, there are a large number of others.  I didn't
> know those we jit tests until I looked at the jit log.  The full
> list is below.
>
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-assembler.c.s (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.so (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (2: +2)
> !  FAIL: output-of-test-compile-to-object.c.o (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-accessing-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-accessing-union.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-alignment.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-alignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-arith-overflow.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-array-as-pointer.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-arrays.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-autovectorize.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-benchmark.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-calling-external-function.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-calling-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-combination.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-assembler.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-executable.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compile-to-object.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-compound-assignment.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-constants.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-debug-strings.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-dot-product.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-empty.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-array-bounds.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-mismatch.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-gcc_jit_timer_pop-too-many.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-impossible-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-error-pr63969-missing-driver.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-expressions.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-extra-options.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-factorial.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-factorial-must-tail-call.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-fibonacci.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-functions.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-hello-world.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-linked-list.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-long-names.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-nested-contexts.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-nested-loops.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-operator-overloading.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-pr66700-observing-write-through-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-pr66779.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-quadratic.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-quadratic.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-reading-struct.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-returning-function-ptr.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-string-literal.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-sum-of-squares.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-switch.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-switch.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-threads.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-types.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-using-global.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-validly-unreachable-block.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-vector-rvalues.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-vector-types.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: test-volatile.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: toyvm.cc.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: toyvm.c.exe (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: verify-dynamic-library.c.exe (1: +1)
>
> Martin
>
> PS I run the test suite on tor with -j96 in case that helps.
> I've been using -j96 for at least a couple of GCC releases
> with no issues.  The only thing that might have changed is
> that lately there is sometimes another parallel build running
> on the machine quite often.  It runs as root so I don't know
> for sure who it belongs to.  My guess is some automation.
>

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

In case that you have not yet found it:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:19:23 -0600, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
> 
> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link, 
> -flto -std=c++11

That looks like <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR86004>.


Grüße
 Thomas


> Has something changed in how GCC should be configured or built
> or what version of Binutils it needs for these tests to pass?
> My builds run on Fedora 25 with Binutils 2.26.1-1.fc25.
> 
> Thanks
> Martin
> 
>     FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/pr55976-1.c (7: -14)
> !  FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/val-prof-1.c (1: +1)
>     FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C (1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091002-1 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65193 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65302 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65316 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65549 (2: +2)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66180 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr66705 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr68057 (4: +4)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69077 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69133 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr69137 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr79000 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr81940 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr85176 (1: +1)
>     FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C (3: -6)
> !  FAIL: gfortran.dg/lto/pr79108 (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: ./index0-out.go (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-assembler.c, (1: +1)
> !  FAIL: jit.dg/test-compile-to-object.c, (1: +1)

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[David Malcolm]

On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 10:22 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> David,
> 
> Have you been able to reproduce the jit test failures below on
> tor?  Is there some information I can get you from my builds to
> help you debug it?

Thanks for pointing it out.  I've started seeing it on my machine.

They appear to have been due to recent(?) changes to IPA; I've posted a
patch for the issue here:
  "[PATCH] Fix IPA crash in libgccjit"
    https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01282.html

Dave

Re: LTO and other test failures on trunk

[Martin Sebor]

On 06/19/2018 04:37 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In case that you have not yet found it:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:19:23 -0600, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been noticing a number of failures in LTO (and some other)
>> tests in my x86_64-builds most of which don't appear in results
>> reported on gcc-testresults (all those on lines that start with
>> with the '!' below) and that I don't recall seeing before.
>>
>> The LTO tests seem to fail with errors like the one below:
>>
>> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccIaufZk.lto.o: plugin needed to handle lto object
>> FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr64043 cp_lto_pr64043_0.o-cp_lto_pr64043_0.o link,
>> -flto -std=c++11
>
> That looks like <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR86004>.

Yes, that's it.  Thanks!  I've updated the bug to hopefull nudge
it closer to resolution since I continue to see these failures in
my builds on x86_64-linux running Fedora 25 (and they are making
it easier to miss other failures/regressions caused by my own
changes).

Honza, are there any other solutions besides those you mention
in comment 6 on the bug?  My builds run on a shared machine that
I'm not sure can be easily upgraded.  I could build my own Binutils
and use it instead but it seems that a more robust solution is for
the GCC test harness to detect and handle this gracefully (the same
way other missing dependencies are detected and prevented from
causing test failures).

Martin