Re: CI build failures

Thanks, this is all great news On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 21:56 Ben Gamari wrote:

ÉRDI Gergő writes:

...

Hi,

I'm seeing three build failures in CI:

Hi,

...

1. On perf-nofib, it fails with:

Don't worry about this one for the moment. This job is marked as accepting of failure for a reason (hence the job state being an orange exclamation mark rather than a red X).

...

== make boot -j --jobserver-fds=3,4 --no-print-directory; in /builds/cactus/ghc/nofib/real/smallpt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /builds/cactus/ghc/ghc/bin/ghc -M -dep-suffix "" -dep-makefile .depend -osuf o -O2 -Wno-tabs -Rghc-timing -H32m -hisuf hi -packageunboxed-ref -rtsopts smallpt.hs <command line>: cannot satisfy -package unboxed-ref (use -v for more information)

(e.g. https://gitlab.haskell.org/cactus/ghc/-/jobs/743141#L1465)

2. On validate-x86_64-darwin, pretty much every test fails because of the following extra stderr output:

+ +<no location info>: + warning: Couldn't figure out C compiler information! + Make sure you're using GNU gcc, or clang

(e.g. https://gitlab.haskell.org/cactus/ghc/-/jobs/743129#L3655)

Yes, this will be fixed by !6162 once I get it passing CI.

...

3. On validate-x86_64-linux-deb9-integer-simple, T11545 fails on memory consumption:

Unexpected stat failures: perf/compiler/T11545.run T11545 [stat decreased from x86_64-linux-deb9-integer-simple-validate baseline @ 5f3991c7cab8ccc9ab8daeebbfce57afbd9acc33] (normal)

This test appears to be quite sensitive to environment. I suspect we should further increase its acceptance window to avoid this sort of spurious failure.

Cheers,

Cheers,

- Ben