From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32037 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2014 18:15:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32026 invoked by uid 89); 2 Oct 2014 18:15:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:15:09 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s92IEqst030095; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 13:14:53 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id s92IEpPk030093; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 13:14:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:15:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Andrew MacLeod , Jakub Jelinek , Bernd Schmidt , gcc-patches , richard.sandiford@arm.com, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: parallel check output changes? Message-ID: <20141002181450.GB25260@gate.crashing.org> References: <541AD880.7080703@redhat.com> <541AF451.3070406@redhat.com> <541B1710.8060809@codesourcery.com> <20140918173609.GM17454@tucnak.redhat.com> <20140918184455.GB28595@gate.crashing.org> <20140919093723.GA26414@gate.crashing.org> <87iokel5c0.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5422DB41.1090800@redhat.com> <20141002164739.GA25260@gate.crashing.org> <871tqqnz4k.fsf@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871tqqnz4k.fsf@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 06:46:19PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Segher Boessenkool writes: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:54:57AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > >> Is this suppose to be resolved now? I'm still seeing some issues with a > >> branch cut from mainline from yesterday. > > > > Confirmed. The following patch works for me, and Andrew has tested it > > as well. The comment it removes isn't valid before the patch either. > > I get the impression from a short dismissal like that that this script > is pretty hated :-(. I meant that it isn't valid currently; it was valid before the parallelisation patches. It would be nice if we could reconstruct the original order somehow. Without this patch the order is different every run though, and that makes comparing testresults unworkable. Segher