This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Buildbot Update
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Paulo Matos <pmatos@linki.tools>
- Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:48:53 +0000
- Subject: Re: GCC Buildbot Update
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 217.140.96.140) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; gcc.gnu.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gcc.gnu.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <f664b74e-8751-24ed-139f-443ce3f1cdef@linki.tools> <CAKdteObvKKTJrpq2Mod-9H37QpiT2gPshgfeztWJvi-XLQE-sw@mail.gmail.com> <61dee997-5760-63ac-8a7d-d901e60fa771@linki.tools> <CAKdteObuo4w9NmNE7B7m5ACNBmTF+khNscGtGZ7sG7msVL3q-g@mail.gmail.com> <be5b763f-649f-c27a-c73b-6cc2affc6161@linki.tools> <CAKdteOZnoDdFZP86xnQLq+kgbi3xp=SuifswW1PmAdvgKVr7Ug@mail.gmail.com> <2b92a1ae-0f24-7c70-67e8-64d9105c8123@linki.tools>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +0000, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 20/12/17 10:51, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> > The recent fix changed the Makefile and configure script in libatomic.
> > I guess that if your incremental builds does not run configure, it's
> > still using old Makefiles, and old options.
> >
> >
> You're right. I guess incremental builds should always call configure,
> just in case.
For my personal bisect scripts I try an incremental build, with a
full rebuild as a fallback on failure.
That gives me the benefits of an incremental build most of the time (I
don't have stats on how often) with an automated approach to keeping things
going where there are issues.
Note that there are rare cases where depencies are missed in the toolchain
and an incremental build will give you a toolchain with undefined
behaviour, as one compilation unit takes a new definition of a
struct/interface and the other sits on an outdated compile from the
previous build.
I don't have a good way to detect these.
Thanks,
James