On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > I think it would be more useful to have a script parse gcc-testresults@ > postings from the various autotesters and produce a nice webpage > with revisions and known FAIL/XPASSes for the target triplets that > are tested.
Better than parsing gcc-testresults might be a system for uploading full .sum files (or indeed .logs as well) to a database. gcc-testresults is useful, but if a test isn't mentioned in a message you don't know if it passed or wasn't run at all, for example. The database would be big by gcc.gnu.org standards (maybe multiple GB a day if all the gcc-testresults posters start uploading full .log files), but not by the standards of many modern web databases. You'd want a contrib/ script for uploading files given metadata about the test run (some identifier for the tester, details of configuration and multilibs involved in the various files) that could be used for both build tree and installed testing. (You might want to parse gcc-testresults *as well* for the additional logs found that way, but a system giving full logs and reliably identifying successive builds from the same tester could do more things, such as identifying regressions seen by any individual tester as opposed to a test that passes for one person on a given target and fails for another person on that target.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
