Re: changes requesting for GCC 17 Release Criteria (secondary targets)

On 3/24/2026 3:02 AM, Dongsheng Song via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 4:37 PM Richard Biener
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 9:25 AM Dongsheng Song <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I downloaded the archives of the most recent seven GCC test-result
>>> emails. The results of the AI analysis are presented below for your
>>> reference:
[ ... ]
I'd be careful drawing conclusions here.   It's interesting data, but I 
wouldn't necessarily equate it to port viability, popularity, or 
anything like that.   It's just measuring who's set up their CI bots to 
post to gcc-testresults.  If I look at build #s in my system (which 
would correspond to how many messages it would have sent to 
gcc-testresults if I let it) it would show that riscv is about 2X as 
popular as x86_64 which is just silly.  Even something like pru-elf 
would be seen as more popular than x86_64 because I often run the 
crosses for sniff testing without the natives.  Things like ppc would be 
at the bottom of the list because they're qemu emulated and with a 24+hr 
cycle time I only run them once a week).

A much more useful metric at least on the ISA side would be changes to 
the relevant config/ directory.  That won't get you granularity at the 
target level since a given ISA might have several ports for different OS 
variants.  THat's still going to be noisy data for a multitude of 
reasons, but at least gets you closer to measuring port popularity at 
the developer level.

Jeff