From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Cc: Matthias Klose <matthias.klose@canonical.com>,
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>,
binutils@sourceware.org, buildbot@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: The 2.40 branch has been created
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 11:31:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <941388e7-8e4d-0bbf-5cc6-249fe1dd8c5f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230104003557.GB9735@gnu.wildebeest.org>
On 1/4/23 01:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 06:29:30PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Actually we have:
>> armhf-ubuntu20_04 and armhf-ubuntu22_04 to build GDB and
>> ubuntu22_04-armhf to build GCC
>>
>> The containers we use to build GDB have less cores than the ones we
>> use for GCC. If we add binutils builders on the same workers as GDB,
>> will they cooperate nicely (as in "do not compete for CPU", ie. be
>> scheduled at different times)?
>>
>> If yes, maybe it makes sense to add binutils builders to:
>> armhf-ubuntu20_04
>> armhf-ubuntu22_04
>> arm64-ubuntu20_04
>> arm64-ubuntu22_04
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> That makes sense. Yes, they will cooperate nicely because the workers
> all have max_builds=1. So if there are multiple builds that could use
> the same worker they will just wait in the pending queue.
>
> I'll push the following to try the new builders.
Thanks!
I see they are all failing currently ;-)
I have sent patches for the armhf failures yesterday, so they will
hopefully become green soon.
I don't understand why the arm64 ones are failing, is it because there
is one linker test with XPASS? (I didn't notice any "unexpected failure"
in the .sum summaries)
Christophe
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-04 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-31 13:00 Nick Clifton
2023-01-02 11:41 ` Matthias Klose
2023-01-02 11:56 ` Matthias Klose
2023-01-02 12:03 ` Andreas Schwab
2023-01-02 15:59 ` Christophe Lyon
2023-01-02 23:05 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-03 17:29 ` Christophe Lyon
2023-01-04 0:35 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-04 10:31 ` Christophe Lyon [this message]
2023-01-04 11:07 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-09 16:00 ` Christophe Lyon
2023-01-04 12:16 ` Nick Alcock
2023-01-10 12:43 ` Nick Alcock
2023-01-04 3:05 ` Alan Modra
2023-01-04 9:36 ` Nick Clifton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=941388e7-8e4d-0bbf-5cc6-249fe1dd8c5f@arm.com \
--to=christophe.lyon@arm.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=buildbot@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=matthias.klose@canonical.com \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).