Re: Arm binutils buildbot workers

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com>]

On 7/17/22 17:09, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:54:53PM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Binutils wrote:
>> After the GDB builbots, we'd like to add binutils workers for arm64 and
>> armhf.  They will be running in Ubuntu containers like the GDB ones:
>> https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders?tags=gdb
>>
>> At this stage, I'm not sure whether there's interest in having both
>> ubuntu-20.04 and 22.04?
> 
> If ubuntu-20.04 is an LTS release it might be interesting to have. Is
> it an LTS release for Arm (I am not an Ubuntu user and don't know if
> they officially support something other than x86_64 as LTS release)?
> If not I think just having the latest is better.
> 
As Richard said, both are LTS and support aarch64 and armhf targets.
Let's use 22.04.

>> Other question related to binutils: I've noticed there are several buildbot
>> flavors, with and without --enable-targets=all.  The machine is powerful so
>> we can probably offer to use --enable-targets=all.   Does it make sense?
> 
> Yes for 64bit, unclear for 32bit systems. As far as I understand for
> 32bit systems --enable-targets=all is broken, but only for sim. So we
> might have to configure with --enable-targets=all --disable-sim
> 

I've just tried to use the configure/make options I found in master.cfg 
for binutils_factory_target_all:
configure --enable-gold --enable-shared --enable-targets=all
make all-gas all-ld all-binutils all-gold
make check-gas check-ld check-binutils

which completes on both 32 and 64 bit systems (aarch64 and armhf).
There are some FAILs in the results, though, but no problem with sim. I 
think it is a problem with gdb only?

>> What's your opinion?  Or maybe it would be a better use of the resource as a
>> try-bot?
> 
> Could it be both? The idea behind to user try branches is that you can
> run the buildbot builders as if doing a "real" build. There are not
> many people using the try branches at the moment, so it isn't really
> that much more work (also the configuration is simply adding an
> identifical builder to the try-scheduler).
> 
Sure. IIUC, it's just a matter of an additional *_try_*_builder entry in 
master.cfg, and they can share the same worker?

Thanks,

Christophe


> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
>