This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: parallel check output changes?
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, richard dot sandiford at arm dot com, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:04:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: parallel check output changes?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <541AD880 dot 7080703 at redhat dot com> <541AF451 dot 3070406 at redhat dot com> <541B1710 dot 8060809 at codesourcery dot com> <20140918173609 dot GM17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140918184455 dot GB28595 at gate dot crashing dot org> <20140919093723 dot GA26414 at gate dot crashing dot org> <87iokel5c0 dot fsf at e105548-lin dot cambridge dot arm dot com> <5422DB41 dot 1090800 at redhat dot com> <20141002164739 dot GA25260 at gate dot crashing dot org> <871tqqnz4k dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <20141002181450 dot GB25260 at gate dot crashing dot org>
On 10/02/2014 02:14 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 06:46:19PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Segher Boessenkool <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:54:57AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is this suppose to be resolved now? I'm still seeing some issues with a
branch cut from mainline from yesterday.
Confirmed. The following patch works for me, and Andrew has tested it
as well. The comment it removes isn't valid before the patch either.
I get the impression from a short dismissal like that that this script
is pretty hated :-(.
I meant that it isn't valid currently; it was valid before the parallelisation
patches. It would be nice if we could reconstruct the original order somehow.
Without this patch the order is different every run though, and that makes
comparing testresults unworkable.
Doesn't this patch make it always sort? And that should mean that -j1
will be the same as -JN again... ? it won't be the same order as
before the patches... but I doubt that is important... not that I'm
aware of anyway.