Bug 1733868

Summary: Large number of failing upstream tests on aarch64
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Reporter: Miloš Prchlík <mprchlik>
Component: binutilsAssignee: Nick Clifton <nickc>
binutils sub component: gcc-toolset-9 QA Contact: qe-baseos-tools-bugs
Severity: unspecified    
Priority: unspecified CC: codonell, fweimer, law, mnewsome, mprchlik, ohudlick
Version: 8.1Keywords: Bugfix
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: 8.0   
Hardware: aarch64   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-12-03 18:09:31 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1746605    

Comment 2 Nick Clifton 2019-08-05 12:23:16 UTC
Hi Miloš,

  Unfortunately that buildroot tarball is no longer available.

  I did run a scratch build of the 2.23-13.el8 source rpm for the AArch64
  and none of those failures showed up in the build log.  Could this have
  been a temporary failure ?  If not, please could you run the build again
  so that I can grab the new buildroot.

  There is a possibility that the problem is due to a debugging printf
  which appears to have been left in the objcopy sources.  If you see
  "DUP FUNXC" appearing the logs next to the failures, then this is it.
  I am preparing a patch to fix this particular snafu anyway, since the
  statement should obviously not be there, but I am not sure if this
  will turn out to be the cause of the failures you found.


Comment 7 Miloš Prchlík 2019-12-03 17:47:08 UTC
Sorry for the delay, this somehow fell under my table too :(

Nick, it was indeed working as expected with later build of gcc-toolset-9-binutils, in the final test run before 8.1.0 release the test suite passed on all arches (gcc-toolset-9-binutils-2.32-15.el8.aarch64, gcc-toolset-9-gcc-9.1.1-2.3.el8.aarch64, gcc-toolset-9-annobin-8.79-2.el8.aarch64).

So, what's next? This bug could have been part of gcc-toolset-9-binutils erratum which is already gone, on the other hand, it was reported & fixed without anyone in the real world even noticing :)

Comment 8 Nick Clifton 2019-12-03 18:09:31 UTC
(In reply to Miloš Prchlík from comment #7)

> So, what's next?

I close the BZ. :-)

Things appear to be working as expected and no-one is complaining.  So lets close this issue for now.  If it comes back to haunt us we can always reopen it or clone it.