aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2022-09-20Bump gcc branch to 12.2 release. (#1128)2022.09.21Jiawei1-0/+5
* Bump gcc branch to 12.2 release. * Adjust line style in allowlist
2022-08-24Update the riscv allowlist for gcc12.1-binutils 2.39Jiawei10-84/+37
2021-06-23Update allow list for GCC 11Kito Cheng4-9/+24
- PR 94853 and PR 86153 are reoslved - gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 seems pass now. - g++.dg/tls/thread_local4* added to allow list since they might random fail on qemu, and hard to reproduce.
2020-06-17Rename whitelist to allowlistKito Cheng15-4/+4
2020-05-27Update whitelist for gcc 10.1Kito Cheng3-0/+12
2020-03-23Update whitelist for newlib nanoKito Cheng2-0/+23
2020-02-16Add binuitls testsuite pr-24406-1 to the white list for newlib.Nelson Chu1-0/+6
This testcase is used to check whether the linker is work normally when both the --wrap=SYMBOL and -flto are set. It seems that the current fix only can work when the wrapped symbol `SYMBOL` is defined in the other files and will be linked. See the pr-24406-1 test, the `read` symbol is defined in the glibc’s libc.so.6, and we will also link the libc.so.6 by the linux toolchain, so it works. But the `read` symbol isn’t defined in the newlib, or other linked objects or archives. Therefore, the pr-24406-1 testsuite is always failed for riscv elf toolchain, but seems to work for riscv linux toolchain. On the other hand, if the wrapped symbol is `read_p`, it isn't defined in the other linked files, so we also get the error link for the linux toolchain. The fix in upstream seems not complete. I suppose that we shoud just skip the pr-24406-1 testcase until upstream fix or remove it.
2019-12-02Add a pr69728 optimization success to the whitelistPalmer Dabbelt1-0/+4
I'm not sure what's going on here, but as far as I can tell we're optimizing this while the test suite thinks we shouldn't be able to. Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
2019-08-20Update white list for gcc 9.2Kito Cheng3-0/+24
2019-07-24Update white list comment from JimKito Cheng1-1/+10
2019-07-23Apply new whitelist scheme for binutilsKito Cheng16-152/+33
2019-07-14Add whitelist for newlib-nanoKito Cheng1-0/+14
2019-07-14Rewrite whitelist filter and reorg the scheme of whitelistKito Cheng22-2330/+105
2019-07-10Bump newlib to 2019/07/09Kito Cheng7-24/+0
- This fix gcc testsuite: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c
2019-02-27Upgrade to gcc-8.3.0 release.Jim Wilson13-0/+88
2019-02-16Add binutils regression support, and update binutils white lists.Jim Wilson13-2216/+145
This resets the binutils white lists to the current failure list, as the vast majority of old failures were fixed long ago. The regression makefile change requires renaming report-% to report-gcc-% so I could add an unambiguous report-binutils-% rule. Otherwise report still works the same, and report-binutils is new.
2018-08-29Fix linux regressions, documenting current failures.Jim Wilson6-6/+1046
A blank line in a log file matches nothing, when combined with grep -v it matches everything, which means we have had no linux regression testing since this mistake was made Sept 2017. Delete the blank lines, and add current failures to the list with explanations, so we can re-enable regression testing, and prevent the problem from getting worse.
2018-08-10Add note about FSF GCC bugzilla that caused the bug.Jim Wilson1-0/+1
2018-08-09Add 2 known FSF g++ failures.Jim Wilson2-0/+4
2018-06-25Update GCC to the 8.1 releasePalmer Dabbelt13-0/+676
This has no additional patches, but it does result in a whole host of test suite failures.
2017-12-16Whitelist a log1p failure in newlibPalmer Dabbelt2-0/+16
This might be an actaul newlib bug: it's not providing a range error when taking log1p of -1e80, but it appears that this triggered a glibc bug from a while ago that may have not been fixed in newlib. I'm not sure why the bug is just manifesting now (the newlib sources haven't changed for a long time), but the glibc version has some macros that force the evaluation of particular floating-point expressions (one of which produces the range error) that don't exist in newlib. I'm OK whitelisting the error for the next release, despite it technically being a regression. log1p isn't a standard function, and I doubt embedded users are going to notice. That said, we should still fix it.
2017-12-14Add newlib nano support.Jim Wilson1-2/+4
* Makefile.in (NEWLIB_NANO_TARGET_BOARDS): New. (build-libc): Change build-newlib to stamps/build-newlib. Add stamps/build-newlib-nano. (check-newlib-nano, check-gcc-newlib-nano, check-binutils-newlib-nano) (check-gdb-newlib-nano, report-newlib-nano): New. (check-dhrystone-linux, check-dhrystone-newlib): Delete first version of these rules. (build-gcc-newlib-stage1): Use --with-sysroot. (build-newlib-nano, merge-newlib-nano): New. (build-gcc-newlib-stage2): Depend on merge-newlib-nano. Use --with-sysroot instead of --with-headers. Also use --with-native-system-header-dir. (build-dejagnu): Install it. (check-gcc-newlib, check-gcc-linux, check-dhrystone-newlib-%) (check-dhrystone-linux-%, check-binutils-newlib, check-binutils-linux) (check-gdb-newlib, check-gdb-linux): Drop DEJAGNULIBS environment variable set. (check-gcc-newlib-nano, check-dhrystone-newlib-nano) (check-dhrystone-newlib-nano-%, check-binutils-newlib-nano) (check-gdb-newlib-nano, report-gcc-newlib-nano) (report-dhrystone-newlib-nano, report-binutils-newlib-nano) (report-gdb-newlib-nano): New. (Makefile): Add rule to rebuild when Makefile.in changes. (test/benchmarks/dhrystone/check): Add -specs= option. Use it in $cc commands.
2017-10-31Add the binutils test suite, but don't run it on Travis yetPalmer Dabbelt13-0/+2223
2017-10-26Whitelist a GCC test failurePalmer Dabbelt13-0/+13
This is, at worst, a performance problem.
2017-10-11movmem had some regressions, whitelist them for nowPalmer Dabbelt7-0/+35
2017-09-13Compile Dhrystone with multiple GCC runsPalmer Dabbelt3-2/+8
This doesn't actually make a difference because we had some pragmas in there to avoid badness, but this sets a better example.
2017-09-13Ensure we don't regress in Dhrystone dynamic instruction countPalmer Dabbelt4-0/+1046
I haven't actually gone and made sure these numbers are good yet, but this at least automates getting the numbers.
2017-09-05Whitelist some failing gfortran testsPalmer Dabbelt6-0/+42
These appear to be real test failures, but I don't have time to deal with them right now.
2017-08-28Add comments explaining why fortran tests fail (#272)Andrew Waterman1-0/+6
2017-08-20Whitelist the current set of test failuresPalmer Dabbelt13-0/+433
I haven't actually done my due diligance here to ensure this is the minimal set of test failures.