From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35398 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2018 21:46:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 32807 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2018 21:46:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:s-PPFvD, H*f:sk:0oQQ@ma, H*i:sk:s-PPFvD, H*i:sk:0oQQ@ma X-HELO: box.linki.tools Received: from box.linki.tools (HELO box.linki.tools) (88.198.125.222) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:46:52 +0000 Received: from authenticated-user (box.linki.tools [88.198.125.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by box.linki.tools (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E77A403A3; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:46:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Both GCC and GDB buildbot use gcc114 To: Yao Qi Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, GDB , Sergio Durigan Junior References: From: Paulo Matos Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:46:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 On 27/02/18 13:53, Yao Qi wrote: > Hi Paulo, > I noticed that GDB buildbot pending build queue on aarch64-linux > becomes longer and longer, > https://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/builders/Ubuntu-AArch64-m64 > as it takes longer to finish each build and test. > > Looks that you deployed aarch64-linux buildslave for GCC buildbot > on gcc114 as well, that is reason that GDB build and test is slowed > down (GCC build and test is slowed down too). > > We'd better avoid using the same machine for two buildbots. Are there > any easy way to move one buildslave to a different machine like gcc115 > or gcc116. As far as I know, they are identical. > Apologies for the clash on resources. Using gcc115 and gcc116 only now. Kind regards, -- Paulo Matos