From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: "Overseers mailing list" <overseers@sourceware.org>,
"Thomas Fitzsimmons" <fitzsim@fitzsim.org>,
"Dan Horák" <dhorak@redhat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@elastic.org>
Subject: Re: binutils builder status (Was: Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 11:40:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2057f8162f12ae221aef5e98b8b9058b138c16bb.camel@klomp.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220501163734.GA30898@gnu.wildebeest.org>
Hi,
A small update. Announcing two new builders.
On Sun, 2022-05-01 at 18:37 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> https://builder.sourceware.org now has 6 binutils builders:
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders?tags=binutils
> debian-amd64, fedora-x86_64, fedora-s390x, debian-ppc64, debian-armhf
> and debian-arm64. I like to add a fedora-ppc64le one once that one
> has enough disk space.
>
> The first two are configured with --enable-targets=all. The others
> not because they are too slow and/or --enable-targets=all causes
> extra failures.
>
> All build all-gas all-ld all-bintuils all-gold fine. fedora-x86_64
> and binutils-debian-ppc64 pass the whole testsuite check-gas check-ld
> check-binutils.
>
> The gas and binutils testsuites seem clean on all builders. But the ld
> testsuite does see some unexpected failures or passes on some
> builders. It would be great if we could fix these. If not it might
> make sense to run the ld testsuite separately.
>
> Note that you can see the used linux kernel, gcc, binutils versions on
> the workers page:
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/workers
>
> binutils-fedora-s390x
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-fedora-s390x
> has 2 unexpected ld failures:
> FAIL: Run pr19719 fun undefined
> FAIL: pr26580-3
>
> binutils-debian-amd64
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-debian-amd64
> has 2 unexpected ld failures:
> FAIL: Run p_align-1b with PIE
> FAIL: Run p_align-1d with -Wl,-z,max-page-size=0x1000 with PIE
>
> binutils-debian-arm64
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-debian-arm64
> has 1 unexpected success:
> XPASS: Run pr19719 fun undefined
>
> binutils-debian-armhf
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-debian-armhf
> has 8 unexpected ld failures and 7 unexpected successes
> XPASS: Run pr19719 fun undefined
> FAIL: Common symbol override ifunc test 1a
> FAIL: Common symbol override ifunc test 1b
> FAIL: Run pr18841 with libpr18841b.so
> FAIL: Run pr18841 with libpr18841c.so
> FAIL: Run pr18841 with libpr18841bn.so (-z now)
> FAIL: Run pr18841 with libpr18841cn.so (-z now)
> FAIL: Run pr23169a
> FAIL: Run pr23169d
> XPASS: visibility (hidden_undef) (non PIC)
> XPASS: visibility (hidden_undef) (non PIC, load offset)
> XPASS: visibility (hidden_undef) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> XPASS: visibility (protected_undef) (non PIC)
> XPASS: visibility (protected_undef) (non PIC, load offset)
> XPASS: visibility (protected_undef) (PIC main, non PIC so)
>
> The binutils-debian-armhf builder is also the slowest (takes 15
> minutes). The rest take a few minutes. They should sent email once a
> new failure occurs (or if one if the currently failing builders starts
> passing).
All the above failures are still an issue, but there is now a
binutils-fedora-ppc64le which is fully green:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-fedora-ppc64le
So binutils-debian-ppc64, binutils-fedora-ppc64le and binutils-fedora-
x86_64 are fully green. But binutils-debian-amd64, binutils-debian-
arm64, binutils-debian-armhf and binutils-fedora-s390x show one or more
make check failures (but all build):
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders?tags=binutils
> There is also one build and check everything builder
> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-gdb-fedrawhide-x86_64
> I haven't looked at the test results yet, but they are all stored in
> the bunsendb.git for later analysis. This builder doesn't sent emails
> on bad builds. It also takes a very long time to run (from 1 to 7
> hours).
Frank seems to have gotten a handle on this and full builds/tests now
take ~1 hour. He also added a builder that uses clang so you can easily
compare test results (in bunsendb.git, no logs yet in the buildbot
itself) against an alternative compiler:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/binutils-gdb-clang-fedrawhide-x86_64
Cheers,
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-16 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-25 9:04 Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware Mark Wielaard
2022-04-25 10:37 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-25 10:43 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-25 12:16 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-25 12:30 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-25 18:20 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-25 18:27 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-25 22:11 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-26 3:33 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-26 6:22 ` Jan Beulich
2022-04-26 12:27 ` Nick Clifton
2022-04-26 13:49 ` Jan Beulich
2022-04-26 15:47 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-27 6:15 ` Jan Beulich
2022-04-28 12:10 ` Nick Clifton
2022-04-28 13:07 ` Jan Beulich
2022-04-26 15:54 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-26 23:33 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-27 18:32 ` [PATCH] x86: Disable 2 tests with large memory requirement H.J. Lu
2022-04-26 7:01 ` Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware Luis Machado
2022-04-26 9:40 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-26 22:59 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-26 22:34 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-28 12:23 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-28 13:50 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-28 13:53 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-28 14:22 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-04-28 17:04 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-28 14:48 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-28 14:19 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-28 14:47 ` Thomas Fitzsimmons
2022-04-28 16:28 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-29 20:04 ` gdb builder status (Was: Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware) Mark Wielaard
2022-05-01 19:44 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-05-03 15:41 ` Simon Marchi
2022-05-13 8:21 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-05-01 16:37 ` binutils " Mark Wielaard
2022-05-05 7:53 ` Jan Beulich
2022-05-07 20:25 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-05-16 9:40 ` Mark Wielaard [this message]
2022-04-28 17:50 ` Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware Nick Alcock
2022-04-29 17:54 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-04-30 0:12 ` Nick Alcock
2022-04-30 22:27 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-05-03 12:48 ` Nick Alcock
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=2057f8162f12ae221aef5e98b8b9058b138c16bb.camel@klomp.org \
--to=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=dhorak@redhat.com \
--cc=fche@elastic.org \
--cc=fitzsim@fitzsim.org \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.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).