Release 14 Branch Testsuite Status Analysis For Commit 7f5b5309ebc5fa66e003950341648d05f6e7062b A Deep Dive
Hey everyone! Today, we're diving deep into the status analysis of the Release 14 branch testsuite, specifically focusing on commit 7f5b5309ebc5fa66e003950341648d05f6e7062b. This analysis falls under the discussion category of patrick-rivos and gcc-postcommit-ci. We'll break down the test results across different configurations, highlighting new failures, resolved issues, and, most importantly, the unresolved failures that need our attention.
Summary of Testsuite Results
To give you a bird's-eye view, let's look at the summary tables. These tables provide a clear breakdown of the testsuite status across various compilers like gcc, g++, and gfortran. We'll be looking at new failures, resolved failures, and those pesky unresolved failures.
| New Failures | gcc | g++ | gfortran | Previous Hash |
|---|
| Resolved Failures | gcc | g++ | gfortran | Previous Hash |
|---|
| Unresolved Failures | gcc | g++ | gfortran | Previous Hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| linux: RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilib | 59/37 | 12/3 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow | 27/14 | 8/2 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv32gc ilp32d medlow | 27/14 | 8/2 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib | 53/35 | 12/3 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow | 25/13 | 8/2 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib | 49/33 | 12/3 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv64gc lp64d medlow | 25/13 | 8/2 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| linux: rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib | 49/33 | 12/3 | 12/2 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilib | 75/36 | 15/4 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow | 66/22 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32gc ilp32d medlow | 59/21 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib | 85/38 | 39/6 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imac ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imac_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imc ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs_zicsr_zifencei ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv32imc_zicsr_zifencei ilp32 medlow multilib | 67/23 | 35/5 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow | 48/17 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib | 65/32 | 15/4 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64gc lp64d medlow | 48/17 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib | 65/32 | 15/4 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imac lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imac_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imc lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs_zicsr_zifencei lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
| newlib: rv64imc_zicsr_zifencei lp64 medlow multilib | 49/18 | 11/3 | 0/0 | f65c604bf533c30100be5210c370ab0ba5eba817 |
The associated run for this analysis can be found here.
Deep Dive into Unresolved Failures
The heart of this report lies in the unresolved failures. We need to understand these failures to ensure the stability and reliability of the Release 14 branch. Let's break down each category of failures and discuss their potential impact.
Linux Configurations
RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilib
We're seeing a significant number of unresolved failures in this configuration, specifically 59 failures for gcc, 12 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. This configuration targets the RVA23U64 profile, which is a 64-bit RISC-V architecture, using the lp64d calling convention with a medlow code model and multilib support. The sheer number of failures in gcc suggests a potential issue with the compiler's code generation or optimization strategies for this specific target. It's crucial to investigate these failures to ensure that the generated code is correct and efficient. We need to drill down into the specific test cases that are failing to identify common patterns or root causes. This could involve examining the assembly output, debugging the compiler, or even reviewing the relevant parts of the RISC-V specification.
rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow
In the rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow configuration, we observe 27 failures for gcc and 8 for g++, along with 12 for gfortran. This setup is for a 32-bit RISC-V architecture with bit manipulation extensions, using the ilp32d calling convention and a medlow code model. The failures here may be related to the new bit manipulation instructions and how they are being handled by the compilers. It's essential to verify that the compilers are correctly implementing these instructions and that the generated code is functioning as expected. Debugging these failures might involve looking at the compiler's handling of bitwise operations, shifts, and other bit manipulation-related code. It's also worth checking if there are any known issues or errata in the RISC-V bit manipulation specification that could be contributing to these failures.
rv32gc ilp32d medlow
The rv32gc ilp32d medlow configuration, which represents a 32-bit RISC-V architecture with the 'gc' extensions (general-purpose and compressed instructions), also shows 27 gcc failures, 8 g++ failures, and 12 gfortran failures. These failures could stem from issues in the handling of compressed instructions, interactions between the general-purpose instruction set and compressed instructions, or general code generation problems. A thorough investigation should include examining the generated code for correctness, particularly focusing on how compressed instructions are being used. It's also possible that there are subtle bugs in the compiler's optimization passes that are only triggered when compressed instructions are present. This requires careful debugging and potentially the use of specialized tools to analyze the compiler's internal state.
rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib
The rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib configuration presents a higher number of failures, with 53 for gcc, 12 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. This configuration adds vector extensions ('v') to the previous 'gc' setup and includes multilib support. The increased number of failures likely indicates issues related to the vector instruction set or its interaction with other parts of the architecture. The multilib aspect could also be a contributing factor, as it introduces complexities in terms of library selection and ABI compatibility. Debugging these failures requires a deep understanding of the RISC-V vector extension specification and how the compilers are implementing it. It's crucial to verify that vector instructions are being generated correctly, that vector registers are being managed properly, and that there are no ABI issues between different parts of the compiled code.
rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow
The rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow configuration, similar to its 32-bit counterpart but for a 64-bit architecture, exhibits 25 failures for gcc, 8 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. Again, the failures may be connected to the bit manipulation extensions. It's important to ascertain that the 64-bit versions of the bit manipulation instructions are being handled correctly and that the generated code is efficient. A detailed analysis should focus on the compiler's code generation for bitwise operations, shifts, and other bit manipulation patterns in the 64-bit context. It's also worthwhile to compare the failures with those in the 32-bit bit manipulation configuration to see if there are any commonalities or differences that could provide clues to the underlying causes.
rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib
In the rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib configuration, there are 49 failures for gcc, 12 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. This configuration includes vector extensions and cryptographic extensions, along with multilib support. The combination of vector and cryptographic extensions suggests that the failures could be related to the interaction between these two sets of instructions, or to the implementation of the cryptographic extensions themselves. The multilib aspect adds another layer of complexity. Debugging these failures requires a comprehensive understanding of both the vector and cryptographic extension specifications, as well as the ABI considerations for multilib. It's essential to examine the generated code to ensure that the cryptographic instructions are being used correctly, that vector registers are being managed properly in the context of cryptographic operations, and that there are no ABI conflicts between different libraries.
rv64gc lp64d medlow
The rv64gc lp64d medlow configuration, representing a 64-bit RISC-V architecture with general-purpose and compressed instructions, shows 25 failures for gcc, 8 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. Similar to the 32-bit 'gc' configuration, the failures might be related to compressed instructions or their interaction with the general-purpose instruction set. Investigating these failures should involve examining the generated code for correctness, with a particular focus on how compressed instructions are being used in the 64-bit context. It's also possible that there are optimization-related issues that are triggered by the presence of compressed instructions. This necessitates careful debugging and the potential use of compiler analysis tools.
rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib
The rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib configuration, which adds vector extensions to the 64-bit 'gc' setup with multilib support, has 49 failures for gcc, 12 for g++, and 12 for gfortran. This mirrors the 32-bit 'gcv' configuration in terms of the combination of vector extensions and multilib. Therefore, the failures are likely related to the vector instruction set and its interaction with other architectural features, as well as potential ABI issues introduced by multilib. Debugging requires a deep understanding of the RISC-V vector extension specification, the compiler's implementation of it, and the ABI considerations for multilib in the 64-bit environment. It's crucial to verify the correctness of vector instruction generation, vector register management, and the absence of ABI conflicts between different parts of the compiled code.
Newlib Configurations
RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilib
The Newlib environment also shows significant failures. The RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilib configuration has 75 failures for gcc, 15 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. This indicates a problem specific to the RVA23U64 profile within the Newlib environment, particularly affecting the gcc compiler. It's critical to investigate why this specific profile is experiencing so many failures. This may involve examining the interaction between the Newlib library and the generated code for the RVA23U64 architecture. It's also possible that there are issues in the Newlib port itself that are causing these failures. A thorough investigation should include debugging the compiled code within the Newlib environment, analyzing the library's behavior, and potentially reviewing the Newlib porting guide for the RVA23U64 architecture.
rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow
For the rv32 Bitmanip ilp32d medlow configuration in Newlib, we see 66 failures for gcc, 35 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. Similar to the Linux environment, the failures here might be related to the bit manipulation extensions. However, the Newlib environment introduces additional complexities, as it involves the interaction between the compiler, the standard library, and the underlying system. Debugging these failures requires understanding how Newlib is handling bit manipulation operations and ensuring that the compiler-generated code is compatible with the library's expectations. It's also worthwhile to check if there are any Newlib-specific issues related to bit manipulation or if there are any differences in the way bit manipulation is implemented in Newlib compared to the Linux environment.
rv32gc ilp32d medlow
The rv32gc ilp32d medlow configuration in Newlib shows 59 failures for gcc, 35 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. The failures could stem from issues in handling compressed instructions within the Newlib environment, interactions between the general-purpose instruction set and compressed instructions, or general code generation problems. The presence of Newlib adds another layer of complexity, as the standard library is involved in the execution of the compiled code. A thorough investigation should include examining the generated code for correctness, particularly focusing on how compressed instructions are being used in conjunction with Newlib functions. It's also possible that there are subtle bugs in the compiler's optimization passes that are only triggered when compressed instructions and Newlib are both present.
rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib
With the rv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib configuration in Newlib, there are 85 failures for gcc, 39 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. This is a significant number of failures, likely indicating issues related to the vector instruction set or its interaction with Newlib. The multilib aspect could also be a contributing factor, as it introduces complexities in terms of library selection and ABI compatibility within the Newlib environment. Debugging these failures requires a deep understanding of the RISC-V vector extension specification, how the compilers are implementing it in the context of Newlib, and the ABI considerations for multilib in Newlib. It's crucial to verify that vector instructions are being generated correctly, that vector registers are being managed properly, and that there are no ABI issues between different parts of the compiled code and Newlib.
rv32imac ilp32 medlow multilib and Variants
The configurations rv32imac ilp32 medlow multilib, rv32imac_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs ilp32 medlow multilib, rv32imc ilp32 medlow multilib, rv32imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs ilp32 medlow multilib, rv32imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs_zicsr_zifencei ilp32 medlow multilib, and rv32imc_zicsr_zifencei ilp32 medlow multilib all show a consistent pattern of failures: 67 for gcc, 35 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. These configurations represent various subsets of the RISC-V instruction set, including integer multiplication and division ('imac'), bit manipulation extensions ('zba', 'zbb', 'zbc', 'zbs'), and control and fence instructions ('zicsr', 'zifencei'). The consistent number of failures across these configurations suggests a common underlying issue, possibly related to the base integer instruction set or the way Newlib interacts with it. It's essential to investigate whether there are any fundamental problems in the code generation for the core RISC-V instructions or if there are any ABI mismatches between the compiler and Newlib.
rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow
In the rv64 Bitmanip lp64d medlow configuration with Newlib, there are 48 failures for gcc, 11 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. As with the Linux environment, the failures here may be connected to the bit manipulation extensions. It's crucial to verify that the 64-bit versions of the bit manipulation instructions are being handled correctly within the Newlib environment and that the generated code is compatible with Newlib's expectations. A detailed analysis should focus on the compiler's code generation for bitwise operations, shifts, and other bit manipulation patterns in the 64-bit context, as well as the interaction between the generated code and Newlib functions.
rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib
The rv64 Vector Crypto lp64d medlow multilib configuration in Newlib shows 65 failures for gcc, 15 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. The combination of vector and cryptographic extensions, along with multilib support, suggests that the failures could be related to the interaction between these two sets of instructions within the Newlib environment. Debugging these failures requires a comprehensive understanding of both the vector and cryptographic extension specifications, as well as the ABI considerations for multilib in Newlib. It's essential to examine the generated code to ensure that the cryptographic instructions are being used correctly, that vector registers are being managed properly in the context of cryptographic operations, and that there are no ABI conflicts between different libraries and Newlib.
rv64gc lp64d medlow
The rv64gc lp64d medlow configuration in Newlib has 48 failures for gcc, 11 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. Similar to the 32-bit 'gc' configuration, the failures might be related to compressed instructions or their interaction with the general-purpose instruction set within the Newlib environment. Investigating these failures should involve examining the generated code for correctness, with a particular focus on how compressed instructions are being used in conjunction with Newlib functions. It's also possible that there are optimization-related issues that are triggered by the presence of compressed instructions and Newlib.
rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib
The rv64gcv lp64d medlow multilib configuration in Newlib, which adds vector extensions to the 64-bit 'gc' setup with multilib support, shows 65 failures for gcc, 15 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. This mirrors the 32-bit 'gcv' configuration in terms of the combination of vector extensions and multilib. Therefore, the failures are likely related to the vector instruction set and its interaction with other architectural features, as well as potential ABI issues introduced by multilib within the Newlib environment. Debugging requires a deep understanding of the RISC-V vector extension specification, the compiler's implementation of it in the context of Newlib, and the ABI considerations for multilib in Newlib. It's crucial to verify the correctness of vector instruction generation, vector register management, and the absence of ABI conflicts between different parts of the compiled code and Newlib.
rv64imac lp64 medlow multilib and Variants
The configurations rv64imac lp64 medlow multilib, rv64imac_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs lp64 medlow multilib, rv64imc lp64 medlow multilib, rv64imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs lp64 medlow multilib, rv64imc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs_zicsr_zifencei lp64 medlow multilib, and rv64imc_zicsr_zifencei lp64 medlow multilib all exhibit a similar pattern of failures: 49 for gcc, 11 for g++, and 0 for gfortran. Just like their 32-bit counterparts, the consistent number of failures across these configurations points to a common underlying issue, potentially linked to the base integer instruction set or the interaction between the compiler and Newlib. Investigating potential problems in code generation for core RISC-V instructions or ABI mismatches between the compiler and Newlib is key to resolving these issues.
Next Steps and Call to Action
Alright, folks, that's a hefty overview of the testsuite status analysis for commit 7f5b5309ebc5fa66e003950341648d05f6e7062b. We've identified several key areas with unresolved failures, particularly those related to the RISC-V architecture, bit manipulation extensions, vector extensions, and Newlib configurations.
It's time to roll up our sleeves and dive deeper into these issues. Here's what we need to do:
- Prioritize investigations: Focus on the configurations with the highest number of failures, such as
RVA23U64 profile lp64d medlow multilibandrv32gcv ilp32d medlow multilib. These are likely to have the most significant impact. - Drill down into specific test cases: Identify the individual test cases that are failing within each configuration. This will help us pinpoint the exact code patterns or compiler behaviors that are causing the failures.
- Analyze generated assembly code: Examine the assembly code generated by the compilers for the failing test cases. This can reveal whether the compilers are generating incorrect instructions or if there are optimization-related issues.
- Debug the compilers: Use debugging tools to step through the compiler's execution and understand how it is processing the failing test cases. This can help us identify bugs in the compiler's code generation or optimization passes.
- Review relevant specifications: Consult the RISC-V specifications for the bit manipulation, vector, and other extensions to ensure that the compilers are implementing them correctly.
- Collaborate and share findings: Discuss the failures with other developers and share any insights or findings. Collaboration is essential to efficiently resolve these issues.
Let's work together to get these unresolved failures sorted out and ensure the stability of the Release 14 branch! If you have any expertise in these areas, your input would be greatly appreciated. Let's make this release rock!