Hi Joseph,

> On Wed, 20 May 2020, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> 
> > I'm wondering if those archs use different set of gcc switches for
> > compilation?  
> 
> No.  But there are various architecture-specific aspects to
> optimization that may result in warnings showing up on only some
> architectures.
> 
> Florian has fixed this bug.
> 
> > And another question (I think related) - after updating the the
> > glibc -master (there was a switch to gcc 10 for
> > build-many-glibc.py) I do have an issue with "check-compilers" task
> > on those archs.  
> 
> A check-compilers failure simply means that one of the tasks from the 
> "compilers" run failed.
> 
> In general, if you did a "compilers" run when the build was broken,
> you will have an incomplete set of compilers that isn't good for
> testing subsequent glibc changes and will need to rerun "compilers"
> with the source trees in an unbroken state.

Yes, you are 100% correct. That was the case - I wanted to rebuild
compilers after update to gcc 10 for build-many-glibc.py.

As a result I used the broken glibc for building compilers.

Thanks for explanation.

> 
> > Joseph, do you use updated setup?  
> 
> My bots using GCC release branches only rebuild "compilers" once a
> week. That means a short-lived glibc build breakage is likely to show
> up as a failure in "glibcs" rather than "compilers" (but if the build
> is broken at the wrong time, when "compilers" runs, the "glibcs"
> builds will be using the broken compilers for a week).
> 
> My bot using GCC master rebuilds the compilers every time (but only
> runs once a day, whereas the ones using GCC release branches will run
> more frequently if there are new glibc changes to test).
> 


Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de