On Tue, 24 Mar 2026, Jeffrey Law wrote: > > > 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.
I think the useful thing we get out of this data is what ports _not_ to consider (those w/o any coverage). The data of course lacks any info on the actual port status (number of FAIL, number of UNSUPPORTED) and how those evolve over time. Richard.
