On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Christophe, > >> > >> While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results > >> for various flavors of arm that at high level seem like duplicates > >> of one another. > >> > >> For example, the batch below all have the same title, but not all > >> of the contents are the same. The details (such as test failures) > >> on some of the pages are different. > >> > >> Can you help explain the differences? Is there a way to avoid > >> the duplication? > >> > > > > Sure, I am aware that many results look the same... > > > > > > If you look at the top of the report (~line 5), you'll see: > > Running target myarm-sim > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-m3/-mfloat-abi=soft/-march=armv7-m > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-m0/-mfloat-abi=soft/-march=armv6s-m > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7ve+simd > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-m7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7e-m+fp.dp > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-m4/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7e-m+fp > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-m33/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv8-m.main+fp+dsp > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=soft/-march=armv7ve+simd > > Running target > > myarm-sim/-mthumb/-mcpu=cortex-a7/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7ve+simd > > > > For all of these, the first line of the report is: > > LAST_UPDATED: Tue Sep 22 09:39:18 UTC 2020 (revision > > r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c) > > TARGET=arm-none-eabi CPU=default FPU=default MODE=default > > > > I have other combinations where I override the configure flags, eg: > > LAST_UPDATED: Tue Sep 22 11:25:12 UTC 2020 (revision > > r9-8928-gb3043e490896ea37cd0273e6e149c3eeb3298720) > > TARGET=arm-none-linux-gnueabihf CPU=cortex-a9 FPU=neon-fp16 MODE=thumb > > > > I tried to see if I could fit something in the subject line, but that > > didn't seem convenient (would be too long, and I fear modifying the > > awk script....) > > Without some indication of a difference in the title there's no way > to know what result to look at, and checking all of them isn't really > practical. The duplication (and the sheer number of results) also > make it more difficult to find results for targets other than arm-*. > There are about 13,000 results for September and over 10,000 of those > for arm-* alone. It's good to have data but when there's this much > of it, and when the only form of presentation is as a running list, > it's too cumbersome to work with. >
To help me track & report regressions, I build higher level reports like: https://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/0latest/report-build-info.html where it's more obvious what configurations are tested. Each line of such reports can send a message to gcc-testresults. I can control when such emails are sent, independently for each line: - never - for daily bump - for each validation So, I can easily reduce the amount of emails (by disabling them for some configurations), but that won't make the subject more informative. I included the short revision (rXX-YYYY) in the title to make it clearer. The number of configurations has grown over time because we regularly found regressions in configurations not tested previously. I can probably easily add the values of --with-cpu, --with-fpu, --with-mode and RUNTESTFLAGS as part of the [<branch> revision rXX-YYYY-ZZZZZ] string in the title, would that help? I fear that's going to make very long subject lines. It would probably be cleaner to update test_summary such that it adds more info as part of $host (as in "... testsuite on $host"), so that it grabs useful configure parameters and runtestflags, however this would be more controversial. Christophe > Martin > > > > > I think HJ generates several "running targets" in the same log, I run > > them separately to benefit from the compute farm I have access to. > > > > Christophe > > > >> Thanks > >> Martin > >> > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON > >> Results for 11.0.0 20200922 (experimental) [master revision > >> r11-3343-g44135373fcdbe4019c5524ec3dff8e93d9ef113c] (GCC) testsuite on > >> arm-none-eabi Christophe LYON >
