This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC Buildbot


On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Paulo Matos wrote:

> I totally agree that only if people get involved in checking if there
> were regressions and keeping an eye on what's going on are things going
> to improve. The framework can help a lot here by notifying the right
> people and the mailing list if something gets broken or if there are
> regressions but once the notification is sent someone certainly needs to
> pick it up.

A regression that isn't fixed quickly needs to end up as an appropriately 
regression-marked (subject, target milestone) bug in Bugzilla, as that's 
what's used to track regressions for release management purposes.  And as 
far as possible it should be one bug per logical issue, whether it causes 
one test FAIL or thousands.

Note: a test result

FAIL: foo

where there was no previous

PASS: foo

on that platform is not generally a regression, although it should still 
be fixed to keep test results clean (we want that 0-FAIL expected 
baseline...).  But it *can* be a regression if e.g.

PASS: foo

changed to

FAIL: foo (internal compiler error)

as it's not always the case that the test names - the text after "PASS: " 
or "FAIL: " - are properly invariant under changes in the results of the 
tests.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]