From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: parallel check output changes?
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <541B1710.8060809@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <541AF451.3070406@redhat.com>
On 09/18/2014 05:03 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 09:05 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 09/18/2014 09:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:56:50AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>> Has the changes that have gone into the check parallelization made
>>>> the .sum
>>>> file non-deterministic?
>>>> I'm seeing a lot of small hunks in different orders which cause my
>>>> comparison scripts to show big differences.
>>>> I haven't been paying attention to the nature of the make check
>>>> changes so
>>>> Im not sure if this is expected...
>>>>
>>>> Or is this something else? Its the same code base between runs,
>>>> just with a
>>>> few changes made to some include files.
>>> I'm using contrib/test_summary and haven't seen any non-determinisms
>>> in the
>>> output of that command. As for dg-extract-results.sh, we have two
>>> versions
>>> of that, one if you have python 2.6 or newer, another one if you don't.
>>> Perhaps the behavior of those two (I'm using the python version
>>> probably)
>>> differs?
>>>
>>> Jakub
>> Not sure, although I do have python 2.7.5 installed for what its
>> worth... I'll try another run in a bit.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> hum. My 3rd run (which has no compilation change from the 2nd one) is
> different from both other runs :-P. I did tweak my -j parameter in
> the make check, but that is it.
I'm also seeing this. Python 3.3.5 here.
Bernd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-18 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-18 12:56 Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-18 13:08 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-18 13:05 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-18 15:45 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-18 17:33 ` Bernd Schmidt [this message]
2014-09-18 17:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-18 18:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-09-19 9:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-09-19 16:32 ` Mike Stump
2014-09-23 15:33 ` Richard Sandiford
2014-09-23 15:43 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-24 14:55 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-24 16:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-09-24 16:29 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-24 17:59 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-25 12:22 ` Andrew MacLeod
2014-09-25 17:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-10-02 16:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-10-02 17:05 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-10-02 17:46 ` Richard Sandiford
2014-10-02 18:00 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-10-04 10:32 ` Richard Sandiford
2014-10-05 17:53 ` Mike Stump
2014-10-02 18:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2014-10-02 19:05 ` Andrew MacLeod
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=541B1710.8060809@codesourcery.com \
--to=bernds@codesourcery.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@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).