From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABC3C3858C83; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:47:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ABC3C3858C83 Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id k4so19029552plk.7; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EA03XUsuRB0BNdyK443jHao7mDVMY/D3FQCH+/OW8nE=; b=NdOg5mPw4oCh6UXXLZxy28JGUI6C93VheUkJAVF0jSrBE8fpKZyeNwOq/RYJPEIb9N DKeHDf8bqhy/7mxNvltl71Xo+GuMvngeCvm7o8ThZPicqdCbLQojf2srSesQI4fnWGd4 ZsYRyrjo4x0nLlXElbMQmGARKqTaU1nSDAItxTvEF8JGo+MC0p9ZbQcWJ6ff1/sDjsOD BK3/c0FknF4alNNGHekFESEBgXS72l6iQdciXiKsRU+7ig7vaU/Mx1G6HcqKptM/+f2P ucPvUw0B80OG3WCvPqqnlLdwZ1xWub9sfL7lSAkzG9S/nuO+FqVNdjEORZzmLwo0TfsC fRhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zx4kYDXdtgKvvqU9k1A7O4hb/OLOQ4c9wVr/5ipunON9x4rWt In+UMHVg5PbElyix4LTnP57vi29gdXLrTwNPSKk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdXEiLHeqs+QwT8rfAN/DhcsocKBJ7t/qaDGKUHg07AQx9ZSt6HE3h/Db54eVskkKn4LARdMZwhNyY9WEO4Q0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1108:b0:156:73a7:7c1 with SMTP id n8-20020a170903110800b0015673a707c1mr23741404plh.101.1650988072520; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:47:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5c1f217a-109c-2973-6c69-abf412133dee@arm.com> <254e1535-58c0-0c26-4de2-707b4183f744@suse.com> <7acf388f-eb94-ea28-a9e0-0714310121c0@redhat.com> <70dc898e-0bc8-5a12-9be7-ac9ffc4e1a26@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <70dc898e-0bc8-5a12-9be7-ac9ffc4e1a26@suse.com> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:47:16 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Adding binutils to the GNU Toolchain buildbot on sourceware To: Jan Beulich Cc: Nick Clifton , "gdb@sourceware.org" , Overseers mailing list , Mark Wielaard , Binutils , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Alan Modra Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3019.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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: overseers@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Overseers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:47:56 -0000 On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:49 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 26.04.2022 14:27, Nick Clifton wrote: > >> For gas/testsuite/gas/i386/rept I did already suggest [1] to simply purge > >> the test as unreliable. I also put under question the purpose that it was > >> originally added for. > >> > >> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-April/120339.html > > > > Hmm, I seem to have missed this one. In fact the entire patch series. Sorry. > > The series looks good to me, so please go ahead and apply it in its entirety > > No problem. With my new powers I had committed it already. > > > As for disabling the rept because it is so memory expensive: I think that we > > used to.have an environment variable called something like RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS > > that had to be set before certain tests were run. Checking the sources though > > I cannot find it, so maybe I am imagining things. I still might be a good idea > > though. If we use it consistently in the binutils testsuites for the big tests > > then users will probably appreciate the facility. > > But a test which is run by almost nobody is more likely to break. Also I > think "expensive" has multiple dimensions (memory and time at least), and > depending on the system one may want to run (or suppress) one but not the > other kind. For the test in question, it is both memory and cycles hungry, > so there the distinction may not matter. > > But I'd like to raise the question again: Is what the test was added for > actually a useful thing to test, at the risk of the test failing simply > because there's too little memory available? Iirc the problem was non- > graceful error handling. But the test does not check that the error in > question now is handled gracefully; it expects that there be no error. > > gas/testsuite/gas/i386/rept.s failed to assemble before the fix: commit 39a45edc073226e748566b497c216830cec119c4 Author: Alan Modra Date: Thu Jun 7 12:47:23 2012 +0000 PR gas/14201 We can limit it to 64-bit only if it helps. -- H.J.