On 3/24/2026 3:02 AM, Dongsheng Song via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 4:37 PM Richard Biener
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 9:25 AM Dongsheng Song <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I downloaded the archives of the most recent seven GCC test-result
emails. The results of the AI analysis are presented below for your
reference:
[ ... ]
I'd be careful drawing conclusions here. It's interesting data, but I
wouldn't necessarily equate it to port viability, popularity, or
anything like that. It's just measuring who's set up their CI bots to
post to gcc-testresults. If I look at build #s in my system (which
would correspond to how many messages it would have sent to
gcc-testresults if I let it) it would show that riscv is about 2X as
popular as x86_64 which is just silly. Even something like pru-elf
would be seen as more popular than x86_64 because I often run the
crosses for sniff testing without the natives. Things like ppc would be
at the bottom of the list because they're qemu emulated and with a 24+hr
cycle time I only run them once a week).
A much more useful metric at least on the ISA side would be changes to
the relevant config/ directory. That won't get you granularity at the
target level since a given ISA might have several ports for different OS
variants. THat's still going to be noisy data for a multitude of
reasons, but at least gets you closer to measuring port popularity at
the developer level.
Jeff
