From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94637 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2015 14:56:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 94624 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2015 14:56:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f175.google.com Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f175.google.com) (209.85.223.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:56:57 +0000 Received: by iecuq6 with SMTP id uq6so198043817iec.2 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.196 with SMTP id y4mr3974477igl.14.1436540215130; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.108.21 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <559FD7C6.2060502@redhat.com> References: <20150709232141.GA7406@adacore.com> <20150710034255.GB7406@adacore.com> <559FD7C6.2060502@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GDB 7.9.90 available for testing From: David Edelsohn To: Pedro Alves Cc: Joel Brobecker , GDB Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 07/10/2015 03:04 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>>> I'm not certain if the baselines truly are accurate for all >>>> buildslaves, but it seems strange to create a release when the >>>> buildbot testsuite results show patches causing new failures. >>> >>> To me, you are saying the same thing, and I don't disagree with you. >>> I said I didn't know that the buildBots were showing regressions. >>> Of course I would have held the creation of the branch if I had >>> known about this. But I didn't, and so here we are. Now we all know, >>> and the only way forward is to look at those regressions, and decide >>> what to do. We can and will delay the release if we have to. >> >> Joel, >> >> We are agreeing. I was trying to provide some additional information >> about interpretation of the buildbot status. >> >> I am note two things about the buildbots: >> >> 1) Their color-coded "regression status" apparently is a comparison of >> the testsuite between a "base" run and the current run. This is due to >> few or no targets have completely clean testsuite runs to consider >> "green". Because there has been some adjustment and tweaking while >> buildbots were added, the first run was not necessarily the ideal one >> to choose as the "base" run, i.e., "regressions" may be due to changes >> in the measurements after the first "base" run, not new failing tests. > > There's no single "base" run, actually. The baseline is dynamically > adjusted at each build; it's a moving baseline, and it's per > test (single PASS/FAIL, not file). As soon as a test PASSes, it's > added to the baseline. That means that if some test is racy, it'll > sometimes FAIL, and then a few builds later it'll PASS, at which point > the PASS is recorded in the baseline, and then a few builds again > later, the test FAIL again, and so the buildbot email report mentions > the regression against the baseline. In sum, if a test goes > FAIL -> PASS -> FAIL -> PASS on and on over builds, you'll constantly > get reports of regressions against the baseline for that racy test. Thanks for the clarification. > > For each build, you can find the baseline file in the corresponding > git commit pointed at in the email report. E.g., see the "baseline" > file here: > > http://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/cgit/AIX-POWER7-plain/.git/tree/?h=master&id=42b08c842d422ae995d244efeb1a85aa8a082e7b > > The gdb.thread/ FAILs you see on AIX seem to fall in that category. > From the results, it looks to me that those are caused by the AIX port > not implementing schedlock correctly. Is anyone from IBM available > to look at these? > > The gdb.cp/var-tag.exp FAILs currently reported on AIX are not really > regressions, but new FAILs. And they are really a test problem, not > a GDB bug. They actually depend on compiler or debug info format > used, not system. My concern is more about GDB on Linux on z Systems and even GDB on x86-64, not AIX. AIX is weird. Shouldn't the buildbots for z Series and x86-64 be green before a release? Thanks, David