[PATCH] Delete powerpcspe
Thu Dec 13 16:49:00 GMT 2018
On 12/12/18 10:33 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:36:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> One way to deal with these problems is to create a fake simulator that
>>> always returns success. That's what my tester does for the embedded
>>> targets. That allows us to do reliable compile-time tests as well as
>>> the various scan-whatever tests.
>>> It would be trivial to start sending those results to gcc-testresults.
>> I think it would be more useful if the execute testing would be
>> reported as UNSUPPORTED rather than simply PASS w/o being
>> sure it does.
Yes, but I don't think we've got a reasonable way to do that in the
existing dejagnu framework.
>> But while posting to gcc-testresults is a sign of testing tracking
>> regressions (and progressions!) in bugzilla and caring for those
>> bugs is far more important...
> If results are posted to gcc-testresults then other people can get a
> feel whether the port is detoriating, and at what rate. If no results
> are posted we just have to assume the worst. Most people do not have
> the time (or setup) to test it for themselves.
Yup. I wish I had the time to extract more of the data the tester is
gathering and produce this kind of info.
I have not made it a priority to try and address all the issues I've
seen in the tester. We have some ports that are incredibly flaky
(epiphany for example), and many that have a lot of failures, but are
stable in their set of failures.
My goal to date has mostly been to identify regressions. I'm not even
able to keep up with that. For example s390/s390x have been failing for
about a week with their kernel builds. sparc, i686, aarch64 are
consistently tripping over regressions. ia64 hasn't worked since we put
in qsort consistency checking, etc etc.
More information about the Gcc-patches