☠ Buildbot (Sourceware): binutils-gdb - failed test (failure) test (failure) (master)

[Nick Alcock]

On 18 Jun 2024, Mark Wielaard uttered the following:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 07:25:20PM +0000, builder@sourceware.org wrote:
>> A new failure has been detected on builder binutils-ubuntu-riscv while building binutils-gdb.
>> 
>> Full details are available at:
>>     https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/283/builds/579
>> 
>> Build state: failed test (failure) test (failure)
>> Revision: 2fa4b6e6df05990365066a0b286322502778d530
>> Worker: starfive-4
>> Build Reason: (unknown)
>> Blamelist: [...]
>
> Urgh, way too many people. Dunno why the buildbot decided everybody
> was to blame :{

... when it's clearly me. Sorry about that! I tested everywhere I could
think of, as usual, but forgot the trybot existed :/

> ./libtool --quiet --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2   -I../../binutils-gdb/libctf/../include -I../../binutils-gdb/libctf -I. -I./../bfd -I../../binutils-gdb/libctf/../zlib /var/lib/buildbot/workers/sourceware/binutils-ubuntu-riscv/binutils-gdb/libctf/testsuite/libctf-lookup/enumerator-iteration.c -o tmpdir/lookup libctf.la 
> /var/lib/buildbot/workers/sourceware/binutils-ubuntu-riscv/binutils-gdb/libctf/testsuite/libctf-lookup/enumerator-iteration.c: In function 'print_constants':
> /var/lib/buildbot/workers/sourceware/binutils-ubuntu-riscv/binutils-gdb/libctf/testsuite/libctf-lookup/enumerator-iteration.c:26:36: warning: format '%i' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 4 has type 'int64_t' {aka 'long int'} [-Wformat=]

Oh only a test case, thank goodness. Relatively low impact.

Will fix.

(Is this a RISC-V box? if so, it's odd -- I tested on the compile farm's
new RISC-V this time and saw no failures.)

> /var/lib/buildbot/workers/sourceware/binutils-ubuntu-riscv/binutils-gdb/libctf/testsuite/libctf-lookup/enumerator-iteration.c:125:93: warning: format '%s' expects argument of type 'char *', but argument 2 has type 'int' [-Wformat=]
>   125 |             printf ("direct lookup: hidden lookup did not return ECTF_NOENUMNAM but rather %s\n",
>       |                                                                                            ~^
>       |                                                                                             |
>       |                                                                                             char *
>       |                                                                                            %d
>   126 |                     ctf_errno (fp));
>       |                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                           
>       |                     |

... but how did this not emit warnings everywhere I tried it? Is this a
test with different CFLAGS from usual or something?

-- 
NULL && (void)