From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C02F3858D1E; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:54:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1C02F3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 065AC302BBED; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:54:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:54:48 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Nick Alcock Cc: Luis Machado via Binutils , Luis Machado , "gdb@sourceware.org" , Overseers mailing list , "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware Message-ID: <20220429175448.GA7305@gnu.wildebeest.org> References: <5c1f217a-109c-2973-6c69-abf412133dee@arm.com> <524b04b7-a78c-7aae-4605-b40f61e6830c@arm.com> <16fe426d-c436-f030-dc43-0e81e7f0e853@arm.com> <87pml1jdx1.fsf@esperi.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pml1jdx1.fsf@esperi.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:54:51 -0000 Hi Nick, On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 06:50:02PM +0100, Nick Alcock wrote: > On 28 Apr 2022, Luis Machado via Binutils outgrape: > > It would make sense to build-test gdb if any of the following changes: > [...] > > libctf/ > > This won't do much with gdb without a (much) newer compiler. (I > build-test gdb before every libctf commit -- every commit that I do, > anyway. I do actual gdb test runs rather less often. I should fix that, > at least for the CTF tests...) > > It doesn't change anywhere near as often as GDB though so the cost of > adding it is low. How much newer compiler are we talking? There are other builders that use workers which might have newer gcc installed. A change in libctf is tested against a build of gdb (but no tests yet). Should a change in libctf also cause a check of a build of gas/ld/binutils/gold and tests of gas/ld/binutils? Are there any specific ctf tests that aren't part of the above testsuite? If so would it make sense to make libctf its own "project" so that a change to libctf (and any depended directoy/config files) would cause a "just build libctf and run the ctf testsuite"? Maybe we should add something similar for gprof, gprofng and sim? Cheers, Mark