Re: [rvm-core] [rvm-regress] [core-ppc32.7569] 58 FAILURES

View: New views
2 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Parent Message unknown Re: [rvm-core] [rvm-regress] [core-ppc32.7569] 58 FAILURES

by Ian Rogers (nabble) :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi,

these results seem to imply PPC 32 has regressed, however, on my PPC
32 I can't repeat this and PPC 64 hasn't regressed. I therefore think
this is likely to be a machine issue. My concern is that I recently
changed the PPC baseline compiler to streamline some reference stores.
Apologies if I'm at fault.

Ian

2009/2/1 [piccolo] <rvm-regression@...>:

> Regression summary for core-ppc32 (r15322) on piccolo.watson.ibm.com, Sun
> Feb 01 07:10:14 UTC 2009
>
> See the Full Report Statistics Report
>
> Revisions covered by this test run: 15319, 15320, 15321, 15322
>
> Test Runs covered by this report: core-ppc32.7413 (r15291), core-ppc32.7430
> (r15294), core-ppc32.7448 (r15294), core-ppc32.7465 (r15294),
> core-ppc32.7481 (r15294), core-ppc32.7499 (r15298), core-ppc32.7517
> (r15301), core-ppc32.7536 (r15317), core-ppc32.7552 (r15319),
> core-ppc32.7569 (r15322)
>
> Failed 58/645 (8%)
>
> 1 new failures this run
>
> development Opt_0 basic TestBackEdgeGC FAILURE Details
>
> 0 missing tests this run
>
> 0 new successes this run
>
> 65 intermittent failures over this week
>
> 0 consistent failures over this week
>
> Performance Statistics
>
> 23/01 24/01 25/01 26/01 27/01 28/01 29/01 30/01 31/01 01/02
> Success Rate 644/645 644/645 643/645 644/645 643/645 645/645 645/645 643/645
> 586/645 587/645
> SPECjbb2000 23288 (-1%) 23262 (-2%) 23491 (-1%) 23281 (-1%) 23081 (-2%)
> 23406 (-1%) 23244 (-2%) 23418 (-1%)
> SPECjbb2005 3852 3889 3699 (-4%) 3538 (-9%) 3645 (-6%) 3691 (-5%) 3691 (-5%)
> 3622 (-6%)
> SPECjvm98 178.34 (-2%) 181.64 179.63 (-1%) 178.81 (-2%) 177.81 (-2%) 176.67
> (-3%) 181.09 (-0%) 177.92 (-2%)
> dacapo: antlr 32930 (+24%) 26723 31493 (+18%) 27175 31728 (+19%) 31509
> (+18%) 26831 31121 (+17%) 32104 (+21%) 27766
> dacapo: bloat 14320 (+7%) 14069 (+5%) 13734 (+2%) 13595 13626 14093 (+5%)
> 14361 (+7%) 14321 (+7%)
> dacapo: eclipse 137029 (+6%) 135381 (+5%) 136053 (+6%) 128126 134187 (+4%)
> 137892 (+7%) 134997 (+5%) 137326 (+7%)
> dacapo: fop 4579 4577 4607 4669 (+2%) 4695 (+2%) 4680 (+2%) 4612 4640 (+1%)
> dacapo: hsqldb 5760 (+5%) 5800 (+5%) 5931 (+8%) 5620 (+2%) 5828 (+6%) 5868
> (+7%) 5833 (+6%) 5794 (+5%)
> dacapo: jython 16931 (+2%) 17247 (+4%) 16796 (+1%) 16730 17508 (+5%) 17090
> (+3%) 17011 (+2%) 17033 (+2%) 17102 (+3%) 16642
> dacapo: luindex 57498 (+18%) 58802 (+20%) 58793 (+20%) 59136 (+21%) 51946
> 51257 61883 (+27%) 49111
> dacapo: lusearch 9623 (+4%) 10031 (+9%) 9474 (+3%) 9541 (+3%) 9818 (+6%)
> 9757 (+6%) 9682 (+5%) 9555 (+4%) 9989 (+8%) 10027 (+9%)
> dacapo: pmd 10089 10368 (+4%) 10426 (+4%) 10521 (+5%) 10276 (+3%) 10276
> (+3%) 10220 (+2%) 9994
> dacapo: xalan 12400 (+1%) 12568 (+2%) 12502 (+2%) 12668 (+3%) 12777 (+4%)
> 12740 (+4%) 12650 (+3%) 12238 12701 (+3%) 12767 (+4%)
>
> Build Configuration By Test Run
>
> 23/01 24/01 25/01 26/01 27/01 28/01 29/01 30/01 31/01 01/02
> production 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 86%
> prototype 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 87% 88%
> prototype-opt 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 88% 88%
> development 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 95% 95%
>
> Test Case By Test Run
>
> 23/01 24/01 25/01 26/01 27/01 28/01 29/01 30/01 31/01 01/02
> eclipse 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 0% 0%
> SPECjbb2005 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> Ipsixql 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> SPECjbb2000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> SPECjvm98 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> _200_check 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> bloat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> dom.Counter 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> fop 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> hsqldb 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> luindex 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> pmd 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> sax.Counter 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> soot.Main 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
> xalan 75% 100% 100% 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100%
> TestBackEdgeGC 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86%
> TestClassInitializer 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
> TestMiranda 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100%
> TestNotification 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
> TestResolveOnCheckcast 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100%
> TestResolveOnInvokeInterface 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100%
> 100%
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> SourcForge Community
> SourceForge wants to tell your story.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
> _______________________________________________
> Jikesrvm-regression mailing list
> Jikesrvm-regression@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jikesrvm-regression
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Jikesrvm-core mailing list
Jikesrvm-core@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jikesrvm-core

Re: [rvm-core] [rvm-regress] [core-ppc32.7569] 58 FAILURES

by David P Grove :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Ian Rogers <ian.rogers@...> wrote on 02/01/2009 02:34:25 PM:

>
> these results seem to imply PPC 32 has regressed, however, on my PPC
> 32 I can't repeat this and PPC 64 hasn't regressed. I therefore think
> this is likely to be a machine issue. My concern is that I recently
> changed the PPC baseline compiler to streamline some reference stores.
> Apologies if I'm at fault.

I don't think it is a machine error.  Has repeated on 3 runs now.  Piccolo is aix, so my guess would be an ABI/calling convention problem in your commit.

--dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Jikesrvm-core mailing list
Jikesrvm-core@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jikesrvm-core