From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24961 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2009 05:43:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24951 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2009 05:43:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f206.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f206.google.com) (209.85.218.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:43:32 +0000 Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so2264991bwz.8 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.223.1 with SMTP id a1mr488274mur.112.1246599809557; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yakj.usersys.redhat.com ([85.93.118.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm15307678mue.58.2009.07.02.22.43.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A4D9A7E.80300@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:43:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou CC: Paolo Bonzini , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Geoff Keating , Richard Guenther , Dominique Dhumieres , "charlet@adacore.com" Subject: Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native References: <20090702091955.D8EA93BE7B@mailhost.lps.ens.fr> <08BB2DAF-5005-40F2-B1B3-C269D252BD0E@geoffk.org> <4A4D254C.50201@gnu.org> <200907030731.22586.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <200907030731.22586.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 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