From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 51683 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2017 16:32:34 -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 51659 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2017 16:32:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=tomorrow X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:32:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98438135F; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:32:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hG34sc-5HDg7; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:32:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from idefix.act-europe.fr (idefix.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A34981358; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:32:29 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: fix libcc1 dependencies in toplevel Makefile From: Olivier Hainque In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:32:00 -0000 Cc: Olivier Hainque , GCC Patches , Nicolas Roche Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Alexandre Oliva X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg02072.txt.bz2 Hi Alex, > On Jun 26, 2017, at 09:16 , Olivier Hainque wrote: >=20 >> I'd like to understand better what the concurrency problem is with the >> current build machinery, before we proceed with this change. If you >> manage to trigger the problem again, could you try to further analyze >> build logs to check for e.g. concurrent activation of all-gcc in both >> the top-level Makefile and the recursed-into-for-stage1 Makefile, or >> somesuch? Something else worth considering is what the make targets >> specified in the command line were. >=20 > The problems were showing pretty rarely, only on certain hosts, in > certain load conditions. We should still have the logs around and I'll > look into this. They are regular logs, without -d. I can almost for sure > fetch the exact "make" command line involved. This was: make -j 32 BOOT_LDFLAGS=3D-Wl,--stack=3D0x2000000 CC=3Dgcc 'ADAFLAGS=3D-W -= Wall -gnatpg -gnata -gnatws -gnatU -gnatyN' CXXFLAGS=3D-O2 BOOT_CFLAGS=3D-O= 2 CFLAGS=3D-O2 'LN_S=3Dcp -p' 'BOOT_ADAFLAGS=3D-gnatpgn -gnatU' 'STAGE1_CFL= AGS=3D-O2 -O0 -g' bootstrap =46rom the logs of discussions we tracked, the understanding of the dependency issue was that we *had* (before the patch), possibilities to have stage_current and maybe-all-gcc targets built concurrently, via > configure-target-libquadmath: stage_current > all-target-libquadmath: configure-target-libquadmath > maybe-all-target-libquadmath: all-target-libquadmath > all-target: maybe-all-target-libquadmath on the one hand, > all-libcc1: maybe-all-gcc > maybe-all-libcc1: all-libcc1 > all-host: maybe-all-libcc1 on the other hand. Does that make sense ? Thanks for your feedback! (Note that I'll be away from tomorrow to Monday) Olivier