Re: CI scripts
Jan Vrany via Gdb <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 08:36 -0500, Simon Marchi wrote: > > 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. Thanks! > > 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 Thanks, I have updated my job to get build.sh from this repo. > > 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/[email protected]/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. I wrote the job so it uses the exact same script as you're using so yes, I do use -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG. After updating the repo from your fork to upstream I do see loads of failures as well. Once fixed, it should get back to normal for me too. Thanks! Jan