On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 07:43 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/03/2009 07:31 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> This was pretty bad, but it was also unlucky that the failure was only > >> on the exact arch that the tester builds for. Failures on powerpc are > >> extremely annoying, failures on SPARC will go (almost) unnoticed. > > > > Not clear what you mean about SPARC. The recent multiple SPARC breakages > > had > > been reported for weeks in PRs and the problematic patch clearly identified. > > Yeah, but it's nothing compared to the nagging for powerpc-darwin. > Maintainers and other frequent testers of SPARC notice it, and that's > it. While everyone is going to notice the failures from Geoff's > regression tester, like Arnaud did.
Right now the bootstrap+check loops I run on the compile farm cover the following *-linux platforms with c,ada unless otherwise specified: gcc13 x86_64 trunk 3h30 gcc15 x86_64 4.4 6h30 (-j 2) gcc40 powerpc64 trunk 6h00 gcc50 armv5tel trunk 112h00 (c,c++,fortran) gcc51 mips64el trunk 21h00 tri ABI gcc53 powerpc trunk 8h00 gcc54 sparc trunk 25h00 gcc60 ia64 trunk 8h30 gcc61 hppa trunk 22h00 gcc62 sparc64 trunk 28h00 Currently my script loops silently in case of bootstrap failure. I can make the script send a mail to gcc-regression@ when bootstrap state change (work then fail, and fail then work) if there's consensus it's useful (I don't know if people follow gcc-regression@). Sincerely, Laurent
