This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Tests Failing On x86_64
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: nick <xerofoify at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:29:02 +0000
- Subject: Re: Tests Failing On x86_64
- References: <93863f49-0d81-8ef2-26a8-ab5b45736855@gmail.com>
Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches list, not this one, thanks.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:28, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I am getting failing tests when running with:
> make bootstrap
> make -k check
>
> The only code I am running is the below patch:
> From 8c26b03c27912a367af52fd1e48eafb9b934fdf5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:23:35 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix bug 86293
>
> This fixes the bug on the gcc bugzilla with id, 86293. Basically
> a variable is undefined in certain build configuration scentarios
> and therefore must be enabled with the attribute marco and the
> flag, unused for it to avoid this build error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> ---
> libitm/method-serial.cc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/libitm/method-serial.cc b/libitm/method-serial.cc
> index e4804946a34..ab23d0b5660 100644
> --- a/libitm/method-serial.cc
> +++ b/libitm/method-serial.cc
> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ GTM::gtm_thread::serialirr_mode ()
> // We're already serial, so we don't need to ensure privatization safety
> // for other transactions here.
> gtm_word priv_time = 0;
> - bool ok = disp->trycommit (priv_time);
> + bool ok __attribute__((unused)) = disp->trycommit (priv_time);
> // Given that we're already serial, the trycommit better work.
> assert (ok);
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
> It seems to be failing in Running /home/nick/obdjir/../gcc/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.c/c.exp ...
> as this is the last thing I see but it could be a mistake in my code or something else. It does
> build gcc find through so it seems to be tests failing that are not expected. Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nick