This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Buildbot
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, Paulo Matos <email@example.com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:44:46 +0000
- Subject: Re: GCC Buildbot
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20170920230135.GU8421@gate.crashing.org> <20170921051838.GB234@x4>
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> And it has the basic problem of all automatic testing: that in the long
> run everyone simply ignores it.
Hence, see my comments about the value of having someone who monitors the
results and files bugs / notifies patch authors / fixes issues.
It doesn't need to be the same person who runs the bot. It doesn't need
to be the same person for every architecture. But the results need to be
monitored and issues raised.
That's what I do with my glibc bots. A lot of the time they run cleanly,
but sometimes when they show failures it does take a significant amount of
work to understand them and fix or inform appropriate people. (A lot of
fixes were also involved in getting those bots to a near-clean baseline
I once did it, a long time ago, for some GCC bots (on HP-UX, and I think
i686-pc-linux-gnu as well, as I recall), but that project ended and I
stopped running the HP-UX bots and largely stopped monitoring the
i686-pc-linux-gnu one. My experience indicates that GCC bots would
require a lot more monitoring than glibc ones, especially if testing lots
of unusual configurations.
I think it would be straightforward to adapt build-many-glibcs.py to
operate as a GCC bot running the compilation parts of the GCC testsuite
for all or almost all supported architectures (and a bit more complicated
to make it track regressions at the level of individual test failures),
but I don't know how long an all-architectures compilation test run would
take, and whether there would be people to monitor all-architectures test
results is another matter. (build-many-glibcs.py is useful in glibc
development even apart from the bots, to allow people to do some
all-architectures testing of global changes.)
> The same thing is true for the regression mailing list
> It is obvious that nobody pays any attention to it, e.g. PGO bootstrap
> is broken for several months on x86_64 and i686 bootstrap is broken for
> a long time, too.
I don't know if he currently monitors it, but HJ has certainly filed bugs
for regressions found by his bots in the past.
Joseph S. Myers