Re: parallel check output changes?

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>]

On 09/24/2014 12:29 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 12:10 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:54:57AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> On 09/23/2014 11:33 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>> Your patch instead sorts based on the full test name, including 
>>>> options,
>>>> which means that the output no longer matches what you'd get from a
>>>> non-parallel run.  AFAICT, it also no longer matches what you'd get 
>>>> from
>>>> the .sh version.  That might be OK, just thought I'd mention it.
>> With the parallellisation changes the output was pretty random 
>> order.  My
>> patch made that a fixed order again, albeit a different one from before.
>>
>>> Is this suppose to be resolved now?  I'm still seeing some issues 
>>> with a
>>> branch cut from mainline from yesterday.   This is from the following
>>> sequence:
>>>
>>> check out revision 215511 , build, make -j16 check, make -j16 check,
>>> then compare all the .sum files:
>> I don't understand what exactly you did; you have left out some steps
>> I think?
>>
> What?  no.. like what?  check out a tree, basic configure and build 
> from scratch (./configure --verbose, make -j16 all)  and then run make 
> check twice in a row.. literally "make -j16 -i check".  nothing in 
> between. so the compiler and toolchain are exactly the same. and 
> different results.  same way Ive done it forever.  except I am still 
> getting some  different results from run to run.  target is a normal 
> build-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> what I'm saying is something still isn't all getting sorted all the 
> time (maybe if a section wasn't split up, it doesn't sort?), or all 
> the patches to fix it aren't in, or there is something else still 
> amok.  Notice it isn't options that is the problem this time.. its the 
> trailing line number of the test case warning. One is in numerical 
> order, the other is in alphabetical order.
>
> Im running it a third time now.. we'll see if its different than both 
> the others or not.
>
> Andrew

AH. interesting.

The third run has a gcc.sum that is exactly the same as the first run. 
so only the second run differs, and it seems to be from an alphabetical 
sort.  So run 3 and 1 match.
the gfortran.sum from the third run is identical to the *second* run, 
but it is different from the *first* run.  so run 2 and 3 match.

the two runs that match (2nd and 3rd run) look like:
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 (test 
for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 
execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single (test for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 (test 
for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 
execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single (test for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single execution test

and the odd one out (firstrun:)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single (test for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 (test 
for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_1.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 
execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single (test for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2 
-lcaf_single execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 (test 
for excess errors)
PASS: gfortran.dg/coarray/this_image_2.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2 
execution test

looks like the first run was sorted, and the other 2 weren't.

There must be some condition under which we don't sort the results? or 
another place which needs to be tweaked to do the sort as well...?

Andrew