Re: GCC build failure, HEAD@149166 on native

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

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!
>