Change History (5)
comment:2 by , 6 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Fixed at revision 11589. The update to gcc9 was pretty clean.
comment:3 by , 6 years ago
I did a full test in BLFS. The results were not great.
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 143750
# of unexpected failures 100
# of unexpected successes 28
# of expected failures 593
# of unsupported tests 2299
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 50099
# of expected failures 178
# of unsupported tests 75
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 134691
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 527
# of unsupported tests 5923
=== go Summary ===
# of expected passes 7349
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 1
# of untested testcases 6
# of unsupported tests 1
=== obj-c++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 1458
# of expected failures 10
# of unsupported tests 77
=== objc Summary ===
# of expected passes 2797
# of expected failures 6
# of unsupported tests 68
=== gotools Summary ===
# of expected passes 333
# of unexpected failures 1
# of untested testcases 183
=== libatomic Summary ===
# of expected passes 54
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes 2214
=== libgo Summary ===
# of expected passes 182
# of unexpected failures 2
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes 6454
# of expected failures 2
# of unsupported tests 349
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 13563
# of unexpected failures 8
# of expected failures 77
# of unsupported tests 377
----------------
Totals:
# of expected passes 362986
# of unexpected failures 113
That's a failure rate of 0.03%, but I would be a lot happier without the 100 gcc failures. I looked for what was happening upstream and found a couple of referenceds that indicate they know about this two weeks ago and made fixes, but they didn't get into the release.
Similar results:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-05/msg00382.html
Almost all of the failures are caught by gdb so that is what they are not run in LFS Chapter 6.
comment:4 by , 6 years ago
If it helps, here's my test results from 8.3.0 when I updated it in BLFS last cycle. This is on an x86_64 system (Skylake).
renodr [ ~/Documents/Update Logs ]$ cat gcc-8.3.0-no_ada-update-tests2.log | grep -A7 Summ
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 135425
# of unexpected failures 76
# of unexpected successes 20
# of expected failures 435
# of unsupported tests 2188
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/xgcc version 8.3.0 (GCC)
--
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 47760
# of expected failures 83
# of unsupported tests 74
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/gfortran version 8.3.0 (GCC)
=== g++ tests ===
--
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 126210
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 507
# of unsupported tests 5050
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/xg++ version 8.3.0 (GCC)
--
=== go Summary ===
# of expected passes 7285
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 1
# of untested testcases 6
# of unsupported tests 1
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/gccgo version 8.3.0 (GCC)
--
=== obj-c++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 1456
# of expected failures 10
# of unsupported tests 77
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/xg++ version 8.3.0 (GCC)
=== objc tests ===
--
=== objc Summary ===
# of expected passes 2797
# of expected failures 6
# of unsupported tests 68
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/gcc/xgcc version 8.3.0 (GCC)
=== gotools tests ===
--
=== gotools Summary ===
# of expected passes 384
# of untested testcases 195
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/./gcc/gccgo version 8.3.0 (GCC)
=== libatomic tests ===
--
=== libatomic Summary ===
# of expected passes 54
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes 2214
=== libgo tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: runtime/pprof
--
=== libgo Summary ===
# of expected passes 162
# of unexpected failures 1
/sources/gcc-8.3.0/gcc-8.3.0/build/./gcc/gccgo version 8.3.0 (GCC)
=== libgomp tests ===
--
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes 5554
# of unsupported tests 291
=== libitm tests ===
Running target unix
--
=== libitm Summary ===
# of expected passes 42
# of expected failures 3
# of unsupported tests 1
=== libstdc++ tests ===
--
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 13068
# of unexpected failures 6
# of expected failures 71
# of unsupported tests 257
Compiler version: 8.3.0 (GCC)
For 8.3.0, the results were also a lot cleaner on i686, with 70 unexpected failures in GCC, 1 in gfortran, none in libstdc++, and no failures in Go, obj-c, obj-c++, gotools, etc.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
In the LFS Chapter 6 environment, I get the following failures:
FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/char/wrapped_env.cc execution test FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/char/wrapped_locale.cc execution test FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/2.cc execution test FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/char/2.cc execution test FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/wrapped_env.cc execution test FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/wrapped_locale.cc execution test FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr57193.c scan-assembler-times movdqa 2 FAIL: experimental/net/internet/resolver/ops/lookup.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/net/internet/resolver/ops/reverse.cc execution test FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90178.c scan-assembler-times xorl[\\t ]*\\%eax,[\\t ]*%eax 1 === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 139167 # of unexpected failures 2 # of expected failures 527 # of unsupported tests 2151 === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 134426 # of expected failures 527 # of unsupported tests 5875 === libatomic Summary === # of expected passes 54 === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes 2312 # of expected failures 2 # of unsupported tests 210 === libitm Summary === # of expected passes 42 # of expected failures 3 # of unsupported tests 1I guess that 10 failures out of over 280,000+ tests is not too bad.
I'll do a build in the BLFS environment and compare.