On 21/09/17 01:01, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:01:55PM +0200, Paulo Matos wrote: >> This mail's intention is to gauge the interest of having a buildbot for >> GCC. > > +1. Or no, +100. > >> - which machines we can use as workers: we certainly need more worker >> (previously known as slave) machines to test GCC in different >> archs/configurations; > > I think this would use too much resources (essentially the full machines) > for the GCC Compile Farm. If you can dial it down so it only uses a > small portion of the machines, we can set up slaves there, at least on > the more unusual architectures. But then it may become too slow to be > useful. >
We can certainly decide what builds on workers in the compile farm and what doesn't. We can also decide what type of build we want. A full bootstrap, all languages etc. I still have to look at that. Not sure how to access the compile farm or who has access to them. >> - what kind of build configurations do we need and what they should do: >> for example, do we want to build gcc standalone against system (the one >> installed in the worker) binutils, glibc, etc or do we want a builder to >> bootstrap everything? > > Bootstrap is painfully slow, but it catches many more problems. > Could possibly do that on a schedule instead. >> - We are building gcc for C, C++, ObjC (Which is the default). Shall we >> add more languages to the mix? > > I'd add Fortran, it tends to find problems (possibly because it has much > bigger tests than most C/C++ tests are). But all extra testing uses > disproportionally more resources... Find a sweet spot :-) You probably > should start with as little as possible, or perhaps do bigger configs > every tenth build, or something like that. > Sounds like a good idea. >> - the gdb buildbot has a feature I have disabled (the TRY scheduler) >> which allows people to submit patches to the buildbot, buildbot patches >> the current svn version, builds and tests that. Would we want something >> like this? > > This is very useful, but should be mostly separate... There are of course > the security considerations, but also this really needs clean builds every > time, and perhaps even bootstraps. > There could be two types of try schedulers, one for full bootstraps and one just for GCC. Security wise we could always containerize. >> - buildbot can notify people if the build fails or if there's a test >> regression. Notification can be sent to IRC and email for example. What >> would people prefer to have as the settings for notifications? > > Just try it! IRC is most useful I think, at least for now. But try > whatever seems useful, if there are too many complaints you can always > turn it off again ;-) > > Thank you for working on this. > Thanks for all the comments. I will add the initial notifications into IRC and see how people react. -- Paulo Matos