On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 1/11/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote:
> This actually brings up something that would really be nice to
have, a
> rollback list. I am thinking a short list of OS/HW combos that a
> regression means a compulsory SVN rollback. The expectation is
that
every
> committer would have access to a full set of machines on the
rollback
list.
> For starts, I think the list should be:
>
> 1)
> single ia32 cpu laptop w/ WindowsXP
> 2)
> 4 CPU SMP w/ Linux ia32
> 3)
> 4 CPU SMP w/ Linux 64-bit (em64t)
>
>
> Thoughts?
Cool -- do I send my shipping address to you? :-)
How can you make such an expectation?
I don't know what the answer is. We are really caught between a
rock and a
hard spot. The current path leads to each committer holding a
private list
of exclude tests. Then when someone says your last mod breaks on my
machine, we do a rollback to a stable revision. And then sort of
kind of
let someone else with different hardware try to fix the patch,
commit then
wait to see if anyone complains.
That's what the community-owned build-cloud is for. Do your due
diligence on your machine(s), and let CC tell you when there's a
problem.
My original concern is that you found a problem that CC apparently
missed. I think figuring this out is higher priority than GCv5 :)
(I'll help out myself if I can get the failure to occur - testing
as I write this... nope, didn't fail)
Right now, tallying the thread :
Weldon : fails on RHEL4 2 CPU
Naveen : fails on RHEL4, jitrino debug mode (is that only in debug?)
Whoops, sorry for the confusion.
I was talking about StackTest not stress.Stack. I'm not sure if
there is a relationship, but if I were trying to debug this problem I
would try building jitrino in debug mode and note that StackTest
explodes.
But the world being the way that it is, it is probably more likely
that the StackTest failure is a completely unrelated bug. :-)
Rana : works on his 32-bit linux
Alexey : pointed out it used to pass, and possible clue, and
reports works on SLES9 SMP, both debug and release for jitrino
Elena : verified as known bug in em64t, and verified ok for 32-bit
SUSE9
Geir : stress.Stack passed on a single core Ubuntu 5 ia32
So it's been verified on 32 bit linux, both single and multi
processor. The only failures being reported are on RHEL4?
So did CC miss this? Naveen, do you have CC running? or is this
test excluded locally for you? <Insert standard complaint about
local, private CC exclude lists here>
my CC is running, and stress.Stack is passing.
geir
