From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4AE0C3858C00; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:05:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4AE0C3858C00 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1677179101; bh=qw1ke8z9U/p2ZkRjAl83XC+3d7BK02ZbTRtC3p7FD+8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FEggCTT10Op8dVFfuFvKvn0d9o2n4GZURiNyWTJd+5DLulktRXPxrjtD2raYWr6gM cd65xCcHhFrLKsltnuqR/VvyANli9wiI7G+tNyBwaaS/BoX1eKhO+9h5B8A/DyCtJr JDIhB1Mz2DZiuCn1ESpVgdQSsq8Y9BjJYts81edQ= From: "carlos at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug build/30157] parallel "make check" randomly skips tests Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:05:00 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: build X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: carlos at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30157 --- Comment #8 from Carlos O'Donell --- (In reply to Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre from comment #7) > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6) > > Everything is dependency-driven, including test runs. >=20 > This doesn't make sense and doesn't explain why some tests are run again, > but not other ones, and why this is random, i.e. with 3 consecutive "make > check", some tests may be skipped at the second run, but run again at the > third run. I agree it doesn't answer your question, but it does set the expectation th= at anything you find that is not driven by dependencies is a mistake (barring = some complexity around tests-container). The standard set of glibc tests are entirely, from first principles, dependency-driven. We sometimes have missing dependencies which result in o= dd failures that we eventually track down, add the right dependency and the is= sue is resolved. You may have found a test that is missing a dependency, but we don't know that until someone reviews the exact tests and their dependencie= s. Have you seen tests that were incorrectly executed based on their dependenc= ies? Note: I said "standard" earlier because the containerized tests build a roo= tfs to use for isolation and those tests setup the container *once* and that is= an issue that could be improved. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=