Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:26:10 -0500
From:      Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>,  svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r352465 - head/share/mk
Message-ID:  <CACNAnaEiuim_TN7VeKxRFpmtWzMEuJ%2B5_-SLiZOBb4tnRa6bcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaEyHbBuDGC3gxy=6VFo=Ub21abczpBiGtn0wsq3K%2B37Ww@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201909180158.x8I1wuZu011258@repo.freebsd.org> <0FBC9A62-AE3B-4F27-AABC-06FF45F415F1@gmail.com> <CACNAnaG23b92BjmAMD_Pn1PW4gcYEne6vdaJ9SuOxHU1hbmyvg@mail.gmail.com> <CDB9D8B3-4100-4C52-B414-D6C60FE49846@gmail.com> <81382CF5-A928-48EF-93A9-BBBBA174F4BD@gmail.com> <CACNAnaHCO5mTpPFpODTAYwAR1cPo0F29%2BDWxiF0vLTEZDz3yDA@mail.gmail.com> <E262FF1E-5F82-44B5-9534-0DEA8F29B563@gmail.com> <CACNAnaEyHbBuDGC3gxy=6VFo=Ub21abczpBiGtn0wsq3K%2B37Ww@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:13 AM Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:04 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 18, 2019, at 07:58, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:46 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 18, 2019, at 07:33, Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>> On Sep 18, 2019, at 05:40, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 7:34 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2019, at 18:58, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote=
:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Author: kevans
> > >>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 18 01:58:56 2019
> > >>>>>> New Revision: 352465
> > >>>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/352465
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Log:
> > >>>>>> googletest: default-disable on all of MIPS for now
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Parts of the fusefs tests trigger a bug in current versions of l=
lvm: IR
> > >>>>>> representation of some routine for the MIPS targets is a functio=
n with a
> > >>>>>> large number of arguments. This then leads the compiler on an ho=
ur+ long
> > >>>>>> goose chase, which is OK if you build the current tree but less-=
so if you're
> > >>>>>> trying external toolchain or doing a universe build involving mi=
ps when it
> > >>>>>> eventually gets switched over to LLVM.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Better, accurate details can be found in LLVM PR43263.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Uhhhhh... why not do this in tests/sys/... instead?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because there's still value in being able to easily enable these f=
or
> > >>>> building/running the complete set of tests through standard build
> > >>>> infrastructure, but it's not worth adding a knob specifically for =
the
> > >>>> fusefs tests. I also prefer the communication of it being an
> > >>>> off-by-default option and easily deduced from src.conf(5) that thi=
s
> > >>>> part of the build is default-disabled on mips/mips.
> > >>>
> > >>> Let me rephrase things a bit: is googlemock broken for all of mips,=
 or is it just the tests? If the latter, the tests should be blacklisted fo=
r mips with a justification. If the former, I agree your method of dealing =
with the situation is ok, but more investigation needs to be done to see wh=
ether or not the port (in general) is broken and mark it broken if need be.
> > >>
> > >> It looks like the latter case, based on the PR, and it=E2=80=99s a b=
uild performance issue... Is this impacting CI pipelines?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It is the latter, and I do not want to *blacklist* them because as fa=
r
> > > as I can tell, the tests aren't necessarily broken. I want to
> > > workaround them for default by now.
> > >
> > >>> The problem with src.opts.mk=E2=80=99s per-architecture options, is=
 that it can be very heavy handed enabling/disabling features. I=E2=80=99m =
not sure that everything in there warrants disabling at that level.
> > >>
> > >> My investigation suggests that the course of action was overly heavy=
 handed. While I=E2=80=99m not asking for a revert, it would be really nice=
 if whole features weren=E2=80=99t disabled, unless there=E2=80=99s an issu=
e with the feature.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We do not have a lighter method for dealing with this that I can tell=
,
> > > because as I said above: I do not want to blacklist them or completel=
y
> > > kill them off. I still want the option to build and test them, but as
> > > I aim to switch mips over to llvm I do not want to subject CI and the
> > > rest of the world to an extra 1.5+ hour build time for this during
> > > tinderbox runs.
> > >
> > > Given that it's mips, so already tier-high, and I'm one of few people
> > > that care about it (and I only care about it for the time being), I
> > > intend to leave it as-is since it's still a default in the rest of th=
e
> > > world.
> >
> > Ok, valid straw man argument: in this particular case, should llvm / c+=
+ support be disabled instead, since it=E2=80=99s the real underlying issue=
? I=E2=80=99m guessing (non-ancient) g++ doesn=E2=80=99t have this issue.
> >
> > Again, disabling a framework because of a single issue in the tests doe=
sn=E2=80=99t make sense. Unless you have proof that the build times for all=
 of googletest/googlemock with llvm is an issue, this seems like the wrong =
remediation to perform.
> >
> > -Enji
> >
> > PS A heads up to asomers and myself would have been nice. I don=E2=80=
=99t like post-commit nitpicking, since the issue could have been discussed=
/reviewed before commit.
>
> If this was any less than a temporary workaround that will get
> reverted in due time, I would sympathize with your argument
> completely. I had no intention of wasting your time or asomers' time
> with this tier-2 problem that had already been diagnosed as an
> LLVM/mips bug.
>
> The unfortunate reality is that no one (including CI) is running tests
> on FreeBSD/mips, and no one will feel the fallout of this decision.

Sorry, this was supposed to read: "this decision, and anyone else will
simply flip it back on for MIPS in the meantime."



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaEiuim_TN7VeKxRFpmtWzMEuJ%2B5_-SLiZOBb4tnRa6bcw>