This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PSA: glibc buildbot slave up for aarch64


On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> On Friday 28 April 2017 09:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Well, you could have an orthogonal measure of port status distinct from 
> > "are there regressions yet to be analysed", without hiding new regressions 
> > because of an always-present failure.
> 
> Hmm, we could do that by marking regressions that we XFAIL with a
> keyword in bz, say testsuite-xfail.  If it sounds like a good idea then
> can someone with bz access add a keyword? I can then come up with a
> script to get a report from bz and have it emailed to lic-alpha on a
> weekly basis.

I'm not sure it's even regressions being XFAILed; it's generally tests 
that never worked, or never worked on a particular platform (and where 
fixing the issue may well require global changes across other toolchain 
components and the Linux kernel, e.g. the MIPS XFAIL of check-execstack).

Bug reports to libc-alpha may well be useful, but I don't think "is there 
a test in the testsuite for this bug" is a particularly useful criterion 
for them.  Numbers of open bugs in total and in each component, with how 
that changed over the past week / month / year, or a list of recently 
opened / reopened bugs, seem like the sort of thing that might be more 
helpful for keeping on top of known bug state.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]