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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.