On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:04 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2019, at 07:58, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:46 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 18, 2019, at 07:33, Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>> On Sep 18, 2019, at 05:40, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 7:34 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2019, at 18:58, Kyle Evans <kev...@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 llvm: IR > >>>>>> representation of some routine for the MIPS targets is a function with > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> large number of arguments. This then leads the compiler on an hour+ > >>>>>> 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 mips > >>>>>> 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 for > >>>> 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 this > >>>> 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 for > >>> 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 > >>> whether 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’s a build > >> performance issue... Is this impacting CI pipelines? > >> > > > > It is the latter, and I do not want to *blacklist* them because as far > > 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’s per-architecture options, is that it can > >>> be very heavy handed enabling/disabling features. I’m 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’m not asking for a revert, it would be really nice if > >> whole features weren’t disabled, unless there’s an issue 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 completely > > 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 the > > world. > > Ok, valid straw man argument: in this particular case, should llvm / c++ > support be disabled instead, since it’s the real underlying issue? I’m > guessing (non-ancient) g++ doesn’t have this issue. > > Again, disabling a framework because of a single issue in the tests doesn’t > 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’t 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. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
