From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3247 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2014 19:05:10 -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 3238 invoked by uid 89); 2 Oct 2014 19:05:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:05:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92J4bFg020864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:04:37 -0400 Received: from [10.10.59.205] (vpn-59-205.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.59.205]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92J4Zcu007796; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:04:35 -0400 Message-ID: <542DA1C3.7070607@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Segher Boessenkool , Jakub Jelinek , Bernd Schmidt , gcc-patches , richard.sandiford@arm.com, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: parallel check output changes? 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> <20141002181450.GB25260@gate.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <20141002181450.GB25260@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 On 10/02/2014 02:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > 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. > > Doesn't this patch make it always sort? And that should mean that -j1 will be the same as -JN again... ? it won't be the same order as before the patches... but I doubt that is important... not that I'm aware of anyway. Andrew Andrew