Created attachment 626358 [details] build.log.xz [...] Running /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0/work/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/testsuite/gcc.test-framework/test-framework.exp ... skipping test framework tests, CHECK_TEST_FRAMEWORK is not defined === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 15092 # of unexpected failures 223 # of expected failures 17 # of unsupported tests 153 /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0/work/build/gcc/xgcc version 9.3.0 (Gentoo 9.3.0 p1) make[3]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0/work/build/gcc' make[2]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0/work/build/gcc' make[1]: Target 'check-host' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0/work/build' make: *** [Makefile:2323: do-check] Error 2 make: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. * ERROR: sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0::gentoo failed (test phase): * emake failed
Created attachment 626360 [details] gcc-build-logs.tar.bz2
Created attachment 626362 [details] emerge --info
Created attachment 679062 [details] build.log.xz (9.3.0-r2, ppc64) 9.3.0-r2 built with current toolchain seems quite an improvement regarding failure count. [...] skipping test framework tests, CHECK_TEST_FRAMEWORK is not defined === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 12468 # of unexpected failures 13 # of expected failures 24 # of unsupported tests 284 /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0-r2/work/build/gcc/xgcc version 9.3.0 (Gentoo 9.3.0-r2 p4)
Created attachment 697614 [details] build.log.xz (9.3.0-r2, ppc) 41 failures on ppc (vs. 13 on ppc64). [...] skipping test framework tests, CHECK_TEST_FRAMEWORK is not defined === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 2108 # of unexpected failures 41 # of unexpected successes 4 # of expected failures 15 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 139 /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.3.0-r2/work/build/gcc/xgcc version 9.3.0 (Gentoo 9.3.0-r2 p4)
gcc 9 is masked now. Do you want to retest with more recent versions and bring this forward, or drop it?
(In reply to matoro from comment #5) > gcc 9 is masked now. Do you want to retest with more recent versions and > bring this forward, or drop it? Let's close.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6) > (In reply to matoro from comment #5) > > gcc 9 is masked now. Do you want to retest with more recent versions and > > bring this forward, or drop it? > > Let's close. ... btw, this doesn't mean the bug was/is worthless: it's really helpful to have historical comparisons to know if things are getting worse/better, especially when stabling.