From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id LTgpGfn1x2OKfhkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:36:57 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5BD1B1E128; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:36:57 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=YZykPFXV; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0402C1E110 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344E83858D35 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 344E83858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1674049016; bh=BuAWJevYtOwa4C5Bf/AcjQ0uFEW+ehPRTFArGumJym4=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=YZykPFXV7NZSTVpzc0SqpFHKBJ8u/wJzMbwR993y5i/WZtCMKFyip5gqvKeSQ8aSX Ma4cz1wQP+aC6USSADighPAkKqKgJWKjjiR9YXwCJFUxiYHsUrWlg+3FIyO6fYhjAp ywiHfqXL8N7MYfn+SyNSmCO2AwSYzIYe/DraeAy0= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7BF83858D28 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E7BF83858D28 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26BB11E110; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:36:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:36:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: CI scripts Content-Language: en-US To: Jan Vrany , GDB mailing list References: <591347cb638e9fcbc15478691e13e9c0664e3537.camel@vrany.io> In-Reply-To: <591347cb638e9fcbc15478691e13e9c0664e3537.camel@vrany.io> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 1/18/23 07:09, Jan Vrany via Gdb wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:55 -0500, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 1/12/23 07:56, Jan Vrany via Gdb wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> about a month ago when you helped me with use-after-free fix >>> you wrote: >>> >>>> I ran the patch through my CI job, looks good. >>> >>> I'm wondering whether the CI scripts for your job are available? >>> I'd like to setup a similar job on my CI to avoid similar problems >>> in future. >>> >>> I'm especially interested in "configure ..." and "make check ..." >>> commands. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Jan >>> >> >> Hi Jan, >> >> Yes, it's on Jenkins, the job description (it uses Jenkins Job Builder) >> is here: >> >> https://github.com/simark/lttng-ci/blob/master/jobs/binutils-gdb.yaml >> >> The build script is runs is here (which is where the commands you are >> intereted in are): >> >> https://github.com/simark/lttng-ci/blob/master/scripts/binutils-gdb/build.sh >> > > Perfect, thanks a lot! I managed to setup a job on my CI. I just call your > script to build GDB and run and process test. > > There's one little thing - the script uses `--with-guile=guile-2.2`. My build > nodes have no guile-2.2, only `guile` which is an alias for `guile-3.0` so I > have to patch the script to use just `--with-guile`. Oh, I'll update to just --with-guile and let the system pick the default guile. I just noticed I provided you links to my personal fork, which is not up to date. The files on the real repo are more up to date: https://github.com/lttng/lttng-ci/blob/master/scripts/binutils-gdb/build.sh Notably, this version generates a gdb.fail.sum, which contains just the tests that caused the build to be considered a failure. So it's only FAILs/UNRESOLVEDs/XPASSes/DUPLICATEs, after filtering out the known pre-existing ones. >> The job itself is hosted here: >> >> https://ci.lttng.org/view/GDB/job/binutils-gdb_master_linuxbuild/ > > Thanks! Interestingly, my build of 1b1be68b9 (using your script) shows > only 6 failures wheres "your" [1] build shows 72750 failures... I don't know, if you use -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG (like the script does), you should see loads of failures in the C++ tests. I reported the problem here, and it should go back to normal once Tom provides a fix. https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/871qnt2bob.fsf@tromey.com/T/#mceb9a4e339cd209f7b6d8d361ac5b4523d71635c I have some local modifications to the result parsing script, which I need to clean up and push, so maybe there's a bit of difference in how the results are analyzed. Simon