March 24, 2014 Re: master branch broken | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brad Roberts | Am Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:58:01 -0700 schrieb Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>: > I'm not at all concerned about space, and not sure why most developers would be. Assuming that the GDC changes were done on a non-master branch, and that master reflects the GCC master, then seeing what the GDC changes are would be a typical git operation: git diff master..GDC. It's not really space, it's the time needed for a git clone. Cloning gdc already takes 12 min here. Cloning the gcc repo takes 4 hours and 50 min. I end up cloning gdc more often than I like (testing build scripts, testing gdc on new machines, ...) Also linux distributions want to use GDC with the same GCC version they normally use. So if a distribution uses gcc-4.8.1 but our sources are gcc-4.8.2 only that'd be a problem. The current approach always works for all minor versions. > > But I can deal with a json config file if necessary. Even better / easier, would be a file with a single line that is the name of the file that should exist, ie: > > ----- > gcc-4.9-20131201.tar.bz2 > ----- > > I don't mind updating the tester as it stands today, but I kinda need to _know_ it needs to be updated. Waiting for things to fail, waiting for someone to notice, and waiting for someone to diagnose it as being 'too old' all sucks. :) OK, I've added a gcc.version file to all branches. It's the name of the source archive without the 'tar.bz2' file extension. https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/master/gcc.version https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/gdc-4.8/gcc.version https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/gdc-4.7/gcc.version > > If the GDC repo contained 3 branches, GDC-4.7, GDC-4.8, and GDC-4.9, having the auto-tester work on them would be _trivial_. I could enable that right now. It takes less than 5 minutes to do for new DMD branches. > |
March 24, 2014 Re: master branch broken | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Johannes Pfau | On 24 March 2014 08:27, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote: > Am Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:58:01 -0700 > schrieb Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>: > >> I'm not at all concerned about space, and not sure why most developers would be. Assuming that the GDC changes were done on a non-master branch, and that master reflects the GCC master, then seeing what the GDC changes are would be a typical git operation: git diff master..GDC. > > It's not really space, it's the time needed for a git clone. Cloning gdc already takes 12 min here. Cloning the gcc repo takes 4 hours and 50 min. I end up cloning gdc more often than I like (testing build scripts, testing gdc on new machines, ...) > If it's taking that long, you can just switch to git+ssh cloning. That's what I did when I push up my gdb mirror (took about 3 hours for the initial push after endless timeout+retries with http). > Also linux distributions want to use GDC with the same GCC version they normally use. So if a distribution uses gcc-4.8.1 but our sources are gcc-4.8.2 only that'd be a problem. The current approach always works for all minor versions. > I don't think that would be a problem. Or at least I've never had to change anything testing minor releases. |
March 31, 2014 Re: master branch broken | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On 24 March 2014 07:34, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote: > On 23 March 2014 19:28, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote: >> On 23 March 2014 09:31, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote: >>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:50:22 -0700 >>> schrieb Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>: >>> >>>> On 3/22/14, 12:02 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>>> > On 22 March 2014 18:20, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote: >>>> >> See https://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?projectid=2&runid=62582&logid=13 >>>> >> >>>> >> (Didn't see this in my local tests, it probably needs a complete >>>> >> gdc rebuild to happen) >>>> > >>>> > Hmm, didn't see that either. >>>> >>>> Has the minimum base gcc version moved forward again? >>> >>> I don't think that's the case here, at least there's no obvious change that could require a newer snapshot. >>> >> >> In this case, it's a GCC GC bug. >> >> Fix incoming. > > Still failing with a second unrelated issue. Looks like wrong code sent to back-end (trying to compile an ERROR_MARK) - I probably exposed a couple wrong handling of errors in the backend through some refactoring. What I might end up doing is submitting a new visitor to walk all trees and assert if an error expression is found, that at least safe guards me from having to put in workarounds to handle junk codegen. :-) Green again. I've also bumped the snapshot version to 20140330. :) http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/?projectid=2 |
March 31, 2014 Re: master branch broken | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On 3/31/14, 10:06 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 24 March 2014 07:34, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>> On 23 March 2014 19:28, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>>> On 23 March 2014 09:31, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:50:22 -0700
>>>> schrieb Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/22/14, 12:02 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>>>> On 22 March 2014 18:20, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>> https://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?projectid=2&runid=62582&logid=13
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Didn't see this in my local tests, it probably needs a complete
>>>>>>> gdc rebuild to happen)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, didn't see that either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the minimum base gcc version moved forward again?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's the case here, at least there's no obvious change
>>>> that could require a newer snapshot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In this case, it's a GCC GC bug.
>>>
>>> Fix incoming.
>>
>> Still failing with a second unrelated issue. Looks like wrong code
>> sent to back-end (trying to compile an ERROR_MARK) - I probably
>> exposed a couple wrong handling of errors in the backend through some
>> refactoring. What I might end up doing is submitting a new visitor
>> to walk all trees and assert if an error expression is found, that at
>> least safe guards me from having to put in workarounds to handle junk
>> codegen. :-)
>
> Green again. I've also bumped the snapshot version to 20140330. :)
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/?projectid=2
Good for the green. I'll add support for paying attention to that version file soonish.. but probably not today.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation