From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
<Cupertino.Miranda@synopsys.com>,
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"libc-alpha @ sourceware . org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] glibc port to ARC architecture
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7aee950-8172-5f37-33a3-fde5a5c3ff24@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711272209210.23771@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 11/27/2017 02:16 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>>> Any new port should have support added to build-many-glibcs.py for all
>>> ABIs supported by the port (e.g. both endiannesses, if you support both BE
>>> and LE, and any other ABI variants).
>>
>> build-many-glibcs.py works for ARC now - after the 2 backports to gcc 7.2
>
> Works with clean compilation test results for the glibc testsuite?
I presume you just want to know 010-glibcs-arc-linux-gnu-check-*.txt after running
scripts/build-many-glibcs.py <path> glibcs arc-linux-gnu
FAIL: elf/check-localplt
Summary of test results:
1 FAIL
1169 PASS
15 XFAIL
And even that failure is weird as
(1) this is despite my updates to .../arc/localplt.data
(2) My buildrooot based build reports this test to pass (after my update) but
still fails in build-many-glibc based build.
Anyhow seems like this should be easy to figure - not mission critical as the
system running testsuite xcheck is bootstrapped with same ld.so / libc etc.
>>> You should make sure that produces clean test results for all the
>>> compilation tests, for all those variants.
>>>
>>> You should also include results for the full testsuite, including
>>> execution tests (whether testing natively, or cross testing with
>>> test-wrapper set to execute tests for a cross build), in the submission of
>>> the port (and those should be as clean as possible).
>>
>> ATM we have around 200 failures for upstream tools (likely due to libgcc
>> unwinder patch not yet merged upstream). And just for data point, with github
>> based gcc including the non-merged patches that number comes down to ~100.
>> Bunch of them are in math/doubler and some in backtrace/nptl. Will this be
>> considered a blocker. I'm almost ready for next round, rebased recently !
>
> You should make sure you regenerate libm-test-ulps for your port (from
> scratch, truncate the file and run make regen-ulps).
Thx, that indeed help with quite a few failures.
> If you look at
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.26#Architecture-independent>
> you'll see some known architecture-independent issues that are generic for
> certain cases (some cases of cross-testing, particular kernel versions,
> etc.). Beyond anything listed there, I'd say you should have no more than
> 10-20 FAILs in a well-maintained port, preferably less than that. 100
> FAILs indicates there's still some work to do before the port can be
> considered to be in a good state.
The 100 were due to lack of c++ support, stale math ulps etc, default sa_restorer
generated code etc (which libgcc unwinder is choosy about). And then there were
some genuine fixes such as:
csu/test-as-const-tcb-offsets
misc/tst-syscall-list
dlfcn/tststatic5
misc/tst-clone3
...
We are now down to 51 (with github based gcc: more obviously with upstream gcc). I
think only a very small percentage (~10% guess) would be due to missing glibc bits
per-se.
Do you think it would be considered review/merge worthy. I will continue to work
on bringing down failures. Otherwise new changes will mean I keep missing the
sweeping arch updates / more failures ... I can post the full set of current
failures if that helps steer decision.
-Vineet
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-08 0:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-27 8:01 Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 8:01 ` [RFC 3/6] ARC: add definitions to elf/elf.h Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 8:01 ` [RFC 6/6] ARC: Fix several testsuite failures related to unwinding Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 8:01 ` [RFC 2/6] ARC: Fixed inline asm contraints to gcc 6.x Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 11:47 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 16:40 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 16:54 ` Zack Weinberg
2017-06-27 8:01 ` [RFC 5/6] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 8:01 ` [RFC 1/6] upstream: comment update Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 8:02 ` [RFC 4/6] ARC: Initial port to glibc Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 11:30 ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-27 11:55 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 12:01 ` Florian Weimer
2017-06-27 12:03 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 11:56 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 15:51 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 15:55 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 16:52 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 17:02 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 19:32 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-27 19:56 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-28 8:49 ` ucontect vs. ucontext_t (was Re: [RFC 4/6] ARC: Initial port to glibc) Vineet Gupta
2017-06-28 9:23 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-06-28 9:30 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-28 9:42 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-06-29 15:22 ` [RFC 4/6] ARC: Initial port to glibc Vineet Gupta
2017-06-29 15:29 ` Joseph Myers
2017-11-06 20:19 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-11-06 22:27 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 11:31 ` [RFC 0/6] glibc port to ARC architecture Florian Weimer
2017-06-27 12:00 ` Joseph Myers
2017-11-06 22:52 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-11-06 23:09 ` Joseph Myers
2017-11-27 20:37 ` Vineet Gupta
2017-11-27 22:16 ` Joseph Myers
2017-12-08 0:31 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2017-12-08 11:15 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 11:45 ` Joseph Myers
2017-06-27 13:16 ` Vineet Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f7aee950-8172-5f37-33a3-fde5a5c3ff24@synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com \
--cc=Cupertino.Miranda@synopsys.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).