On 12/27/2017 01:16 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12/21/2017 06:19 PM, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> My test results are somewhat inconsistent. On MG's build servers, there
>> are no regressions in CUDA 8. 
> 
> Ack.
> 
>> On my laptop, there are fewer regressions
>> in CUDA 9, than CUDA 8.
> 
> If the patch causes regressions for either cuda 8 or cuda 9, then they
> need to be analyzed and fixed.
> 
> Please clarify what you think it means if in one case there are less
> regressions than in the other.
> 
>> However, I think some of those failures are due
>> to premature timeouts on my laptop (I'm setting dejagnu to timeout after
>> 90s instead of 5m locally).
> 
> If you have flawed test results due to a local change you made, you need
> to undo the local change and rerun the test, and report the sane test
> results instead of reporting flawed test results.
> 
>> I know your on vacation, so I'll commit this patch to og7. We can
>> revisit the patch for trunk and other backports later.
> 
> If you don't have time to do the testing now, then please file a PR for
> this issue and attach the patch with the updates that address my comments.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I finally had a chance to analyze
the results. There are no regressions with this patch. In fact, using
the unpatched CUDA8 build as a baseline, after the CUDA9 patch, 66
additional tests pass in CUDA 8 and 73 tests additional tests pass in
CUDA 9.

Is this patch OK for trunk?

Cesar