* Re: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
@ 2009-07-02 9:20 Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dominique Dhumieres @ 2009-07-02 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: charlet
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00038.html
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> Can someone please fix or disable these runs? They are getting very
> irritating.
What I find extremely irritating is that it takes so long to
fix bootstrap failures. Meanwhile I hope to see such mails
until the problem(s) is (are) fixed.
Dominique
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:20 Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native Dominique Dhumieres
@ 2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
2009-07-02 9:40 ` Andrew Haley
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Richard Guenther @ 2009-07-02 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominique Dhumieres; +Cc: gcc, charlet, Geoff Keating
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres<dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00038.html
> Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> Can someone please fix or disable these runs? They are getting very
>> irritating.
>
> What I find extremely irritating is that it takes so long to
> fix bootstrap failures. Meanwhile I hope to see such mails
> until the problem(s) is (are) fixed.
Well, I suppose "native" is *-darwin which then boils down to the fact
that this is not a freely available host operating system and the
respective maintainers of that target/host combination seem to not
care.
But yes, Geoff - can you adjust the regression mails to not blame
people for build failures that persist for some time?
Thanks,
Richard.
> Dominique
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
@ 2009-07-02 9:40 ` Andrew Haley
2009-07-02 9:41 ` Andrew Pinski
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Haley @ 2009-07-02 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Guenther; +Cc: Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet, Geoff Keating
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres<dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
>> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00038.html
>> Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>> Can someone please fix or disable these runs? They are getting very
>>> irritating.
>> What I find extremely irritating is that it takes so long to
>> fix bootstrap failures. Meanwhile I hope to see such mails
>> until the problem(s) is (are) fixed.
>
> Well, I suppose "native" is *-darwin which then boils down to the fact
> that this is not a freely available host operating system and the
> respective maintainers of that target/host combination seem to not
> care.
>
> But yes, Geoff - can you adjust the regression mails to not blame
> people for build failures that persist for some time?
Is this really a good idea? Surely the solution is to fix the
failures on Darwin.
Andrew.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
2009-07-02 9:40 ` Andrew Haley
@ 2009-07-02 9:41 ` Andrew Pinski
2009-07-02 9:42 ` Andrew Pinski
2009-07-02 10:08 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 21:10 ` Geoff Keating
3 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2009-07-02 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Guenther; +Cc: Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet, Geoff Keating
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Richard
Guenther<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> But yes, Geoff - can you adjust the regression mails to not blame
> people for build failures that persist for some time?
except it was three different failures; two have been fixed and the
last one has been approved.
--Pinski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:41 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2009-07-02 9:42 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2009-07-02 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Guenther; +Cc: Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet, Geoff Keating
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Andrew Pinski<pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Richard
> Guenther<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But yes, Geoff - can you adjust the regression mails to not blame
>> people for build failures that persist for some time?
>
> except it was three different failures; two have been fixed and the
> last one has been approved.
oh and two effected powerpc-linux too including the current one ...
--Pinski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
2009-07-02 9:40 ` Andrew Haley
2009-07-02 9:41 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2009-07-02 10:08 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 21:10 ` Geoff Keating
3 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dominique Dhumieres @ 2009-07-02 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: richard.guenther, dominiq; +Cc: geoffk, gcc, charlet
Andrew Haley wrote
> Is this really a good idea? Surely the solution is to fix the
> failures on Darwin.
I don't this is a good idea. As noted by Andrew Pinski, one failure
was Darwin specific and is now fixed, two others are powerpc ones.
When they will be fixed on trunk the annoying mails will automatically
disappear.
Dominique
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 10:08 ` Dominique Dhumieres
@ 2009-07-02 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 13:11 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 15:33 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2009-07-02 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominique Dhumieres; +Cc: richard.guenther, geoffk, gcc, charlet
On 07/02/2009 12:06 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote
>> Is this really a good idea? Surely the solution is to fix the
>> failures on Darwin.
>
> I don't this is a good idea. As noted by Andrew Pinski, one failure
> was Darwin specific and is now fixed, two others are powerpc ones.
> When they will be fixed on trunk the annoying mails will automatically
> disappear.
However, this does not mean that tuning the regression tester to not
sending more than 6 emails a day (one every 4 hours) would be a bad idea.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2009-07-02 13:11 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 13:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 15:33 ` Andrew Pinski
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dominique Dhumieres @ 2009-07-02 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dominiq, bonzini; +Cc: richard.guenther, geoffk, gcc, charlet
Note that revision 149171 not only breaks powerpc-apple-darwin9.7.0
but now also i686-pc-linux-gnu (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg00114.html).
Dominique
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 13:11 ` Dominique Dhumieres
@ 2009-07-02 13:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2009-07-02 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominique Dhumieres; +Cc: bonzini, richard.guenther, geoffk, gcc, charlet
On 07/02/2009 03:09 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Note that revision 149171 not only breaks powerpc-apple-darwin9.7.0
> but now also i686-pc-linux-gnu (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg00114.html).
I don't see any of the new failures reported in that message.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 13:11 ` Dominique Dhumieres
@ 2009-07-02 15:33 ` Andrew Pinski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2009-07-02 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Dominique Dhumieres, richard.guenther, geoffk, gcc, charlet
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 07/02/2009 12:06 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote
>>> Is this really a good idea? Surely the solution is to fix the
>>> failures on Darwin.
>>
>> I don't this is a good idea. As noted by Andrew Pinski, one failure
>> was Darwin specific and is now fixed, two others are powerpc ones.
>> When they will be fixed on trunk the annoying mails will
>> automatically
>> disappear.
>
> However, this does not mean that tuning the regression tester to not
> sending more than 6 emails a day (one every 4 hours) would be a bad
> idea.
It is once every commit until it is fixed which seems like the correct
way of doing it really. We really should be frozen during the period
it is broken. Otherwise more things break like what happened here.
--Pinski
>
> Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-02 10:08 ` Dominique Dhumieres
@ 2009-07-02 21:10 ` Geoff Keating
2009-07-02 21:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
3 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 2009-07-02 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Guenther; +Cc: Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres<dominiq@lps.ens.fr
> > wrote:
>> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00038.html
>> Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>> Can someone please fix or disable these runs? They are getting very
>>> irritating.
>>
>> What I find extremely irritating is that it takes so long to
>> fix bootstrap failures. Meanwhile I hope to see such mails
>> until the problem(s) is (are) fixed.
>
> Well, I suppose "native" is *-darwin which then boils down to the fact
> that this is not a freely available host operating system and the
> respective maintainers of that target/host combination seem to not
> care.
>
> But yes, Geoff - can you adjust the regression mails to not blame
> people for build failures that persist for some time?
The regression tester's mail should not be taken as blaming anyone for
anything. It's a machine and not yet capable of such complex thoughts.
Indeed, it's not capable of reliably working out whether a build
failure has persisted for some time or has changed. At present it
looks at the log file length but because the log file length can vary
for many reasons it can have both false positives and false negatives.
The powerpc tester won't do a run more often than once every 15
minutes, and that only if the build fails that quickly (indicating a
pretty bad build breakage) and there are commits since the previous
run. In those circumstances I think it's reasonable to hope that the
commit will fix the build breakage and so should be tested as quickly
as possible...
If anyone is having trouble reproducing a problem reported by the
tester, send me mail!
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 21:10 ` Geoff Keating
@ 2009-07-02 21:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 5:29 ` Eric Botcazou
2009-07-03 11:37 ` David Edelsohn
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2009-07-02 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geoff Keating; +Cc: Richard Guenther, Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet
> The powerpc tester won't do a run more often than once every 15
> minutes
Well, if the failure is in libgcc, that means that we get a mail on
every commit. In this case my patch went in on Sunday afternoon, and
the problems were fixed only on Thursday for multiple reasons (multiple
patches, need for approval, need to rely on Peter Bergner to test
patches, possibility to work with him only when both of us were awake,
etc.).
This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only
on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 21:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2009-07-03 5:29 ` Eric Botcazou
2009-07-03 5:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 11:37 ` David Edelsohn
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Eric Botcazou @ 2009-07-03 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini
Cc: gcc, Geoff Keating, Richard Guenther, Dominique Dhumieres, charlet
> This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only
> on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
> extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
Not clear what you mean about SPARC. The recent multiple SPARC breakages had
been reported for weeks in PRs and the problematic patch clearly identified.
--
Eric Botcazou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-03 5:29 ` Eric Botcazou
@ 2009-07-03 5:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 13:58 ` Laurent GUERBY
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2009-07-03 5:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Botcazou
Cc: Paolo Bonzini, gcc, Geoff Keating, Richard Guenther,
Dominique Dhumieres, charlet
On 07/03/2009 07:31 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only
>> on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
>> extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
>
> Not clear what you mean about SPARC. The recent multiple SPARC breakages had
> been reported for weeks in PRs and the problematic patch clearly identified.
Yeah, but it's nothing compared to the nagging for powerpc-darwin.
Maintainers and other frequent testers of SPARC notice it, and that's
it. While everyone is going to notice the failures from Geoff's
regression tester, like Arnaud did.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-02 21:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 5:29 ` Eric Botcazou
@ 2009-07-03 11:37 ` David Edelsohn
2009-07-03 11:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Edelsohn @ 2009-07-03 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini
Cc: Geoff Keating, Richard Guenther, Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> Well, if the failure is in libgcc, that means that we get a mail on every
> commit. In this case my patch went in on Sunday afternoon, and the problems
> were fixed only on Thursday for multiple reasons (multiple patches, need for
> approval, need to rely on Peter Bergner to test patches, possibility to work
> with him only when both of us were awake, etc.).
>
> This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only on
> the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
> extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
What is wrong about failures being annoying?
Paolo, you could have reverted your original patch and worked with the
PowerPC developers to test a revised patch.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-03 11:37 ` David Edelsohn
@ 2009-07-03 11:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2009-07-03 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Edelsohn
Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Geoff Keating, Richard Guenther,
Dominique Dhumieres, gcc, charlet
> What is wrong about failures being annoying?
>
> Paolo, you could have reverted your original patch and worked with the
> PowerPC developers to test a revised patch.
If I had been asked, I would have.
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-03 5:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2009-07-03 13:58 ` Laurent GUERBY
2009-07-03 15:31 ` Dodji Seketeli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Laurent GUERBY @ 2009-07-03 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini
Cc: Eric Botcazou, Paolo Bonzini, gcc, Geoff Keating,
Richard Guenther, Dominique Dhumieres, charlet
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 07:43 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/03/2009 07:31 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only
> >> on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are
> >> extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed.
> >
> > Not clear what you mean about SPARC. The recent multiple SPARC breakages had
> > been reported for weeks in PRs and the problematic patch clearly identified.
>
> Yeah, but it's nothing compared to the nagging for powerpc-darwin.
> Maintainers and other frequent testers of SPARC notice it, and that's
> it. While everyone is going to notice the failures from Geoff's
> regression tester, like Arnaud did.
Right now the bootstrap+check loops I run on the compile farm cover the
following *-linux platforms with c,ada unless otherwise specified:
gcc13 x86_64 trunk 3h30
gcc15 x86_64 4.4 6h30 (-j 2)
gcc40 powerpc64 trunk 6h00
gcc50 armv5tel trunk 112h00 (c,c++,fortran)
gcc51 mips64el trunk 21h00 tri ABI
gcc53 powerpc trunk 8h00
gcc54 sparc trunk 25h00
gcc60 ia64 trunk 8h30
gcc61 hppa trunk 22h00
gcc62 sparc64 trunk 28h00
Currently my script loops silently in case of bootstrap failure. I can
make the script send a mail to gcc-regression@ when bootstrap state
change (work then fail, and fail then work) if there's consensus it's
useful (I don't know if people follow gcc-regression@).
Sincerely,
Laurent
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native
2009-07-03 13:58 ` Laurent GUERBY
@ 2009-07-03 15:31 ` Dodji Seketeli
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Dodji Seketeli @ 2009-07-03 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent GUERBY
Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Eric Botcazou, Paolo Bonzini, gcc, Geoff Keating,
Richard Guenther, Dominique Dhumieres, charlet
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 03/07/2009 15:58, Laurent GUERBY a écrit :
[...]
> Right now the bootstrap+check loops I run on the compile farm cover the
> following *-linux platforms with c,ada unless otherwise specified:
>
> gcc13 x86_64 trunk 3h30
> gcc15 x86_64 4.4 6h30 (-j 2)
> gcc40 powerpc64 trunk 6h00
> gcc50 armv5tel trunk 112h00 (c,c++,fortran)
> gcc51 mips64el trunk 21h00 tri ABI
> gcc53 powerpc trunk 8h00
> gcc54 sparc trunk 25h00
> gcc60 ia64 trunk 8h30
> gcc61 hppa trunk 22h00
> gcc62 sparc64 trunk 28h00
>
> Currently my script loops silently in case of bootstrap failure. I can
> make the script send a mail to gcc-regression@ when bootstrap state
> change (work then fail, and fail then work) if there's consensus it's
> useful (I don't know if people follow gcc-regression@).
It would certainly be useful to me at least as I check gcc-regression
before fetching new bits from the gcc repository.
Thanks.
- --
Dodji Seketeli
Red Hat, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkpOI9cACgkQPejI7lrem2GVxQCgvQKX5RsDVfIcLhurKJSrk9Eh
dkMAnj2iRT1APLvnopyYaQMdF858wIhG
=M6Wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-07-03 15:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-07-02 9:20 Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
2009-07-02 9:40 ` Andrew Haley
2009-07-02 9:41 ` Andrew Pinski
2009-07-02 9:42 ` Andrew Pinski
2009-07-02 10:08 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 13:11 ` Dominique Dhumieres
2009-07-02 13:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-02 15:33 ` Andrew Pinski
2009-07-02 21:10 ` Geoff Keating
2009-07-02 21:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 5:29 ` Eric Botcazou
2009-07-03 5:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-07-03 13:58 ` Laurent GUERBY
2009-07-03 15:31 ` Dodji Seketeli
2009-07-03 11:37 ` David Edelsohn
2009-07-03 11:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
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).