llvm dev - Apr 2010 - [LLVMdev] Call for Help: Testing

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:12:04 Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> > The second problem is the lack of x86-32 testing on Linux.  This is
only
> > going to get worse as x86-32 desktops and servers continue to
disappear.
>
> this is not really a problem if you have root access on an x86-64 box.  It
> is quite easy to install a 32 bit chroot environment.  That's what
I'm
> using on my laptop for testing x86-32.  You really can't tell it's
not the
> real thing. The problem I have is that I don't have root access to the
> machines I'm using for running testers, and the administrator
doesn't want
> to set up such a 32 bit environment.
Yes, this is doable, but it's complicated.  To get adequate testing we need
to make it as simple as possible for new users to participate.  Either we
need a step-by-step recipe or we need a simpler approach.  Either this or
virtualization would work but both are complicated to set up, raising the
bar to participate.

A chroot doesn't run a 32-bit kernel so virtualization would emulate the
32-bit environment slightly better.  But I don't know if that's all that
significant in the end.
> > Another alternative is to add a buildbot recipe that builds x86-32
> > targets on x86-64 machines.  Is this already available?  If so, it
seems
> > we should already be running sufficient x86-32 testing.  As we
apparently
> > don't have enough such testing, I assume we don't have this
kind of
> > recipe available yet. I think most Linux x86 distributions ship
multilib
> > compilers so this should be possible without too much trouble.
>
> I am working on such a recipe for testing 32 bit dragonegg, but so far it
> fails mysteriously and I didn't figure it out yet.
Great!

It strikes me that we also have an issue with gcc version.  As demonstrated
by PR6616, compiler versions matter.  It seems we will need to settle on a
standard compiler for each release to avoid some of the confusion that can
delay releases.  What do the buildbots use?  Unfortunately, this again makes
things more complicated as it requires testers to install specific versions of
compilers.  Linux distributions don't always make that easy.

But one step at a time.  Getting more 32-bit Linux testing is the first step.

                           -Dave

On 04/06/2010 12:38 PM, David Greene wrote:
> ...Either this or
> virtualization would work but both are complicated to set up, raising the
> bar to participate.
Is it?  I don't really know anything about it, but on a whim read just 
enough to know the name of the user-space manager program I needed, 
installed the tools on Fedora 12, created a virtual machine by following 
the on-screen directions, and installing from a Debian 32-bit .iso.  It 
couldn't have been simpler without someone else actually using the mouse 
for me. :-)
> It strikes me that we also have an issue with gcc version.  As demonstrated
> by PR6616, compiler versions matter.  It seems we will need to settle on a
> standard compiler for each release to avoid some of the confusion that can
> delay releases.  What do the buildbots use?  Unfortunately, this again
makes
> things more complicated as it requires testers to install specific versions
of
> compilers.  Linux distributions don't always make that easy.
Wouldn't the rest of the build environment also matter?

Another nice thing about virtual images is you can have many per actual 
machine, provided you go to the trouble of installing them.  You can 
have one for the current version of every popular Linux distro and BSD 
in existence and run the ones you want to test that day.  That ensures 
you get something close to the build environments people are using, anyway.
> But one step at a time.  Getting more 32-bit Linux testing is the first
step.
I have a partner in crime that is much more of an admin than I am.  I'm 
going to see if he has something to donate cycles from, which would be 
more useful than me doing it for several reasons.  He's a partner in the 
real project I intend to rely on LLVM for, so it's a reasonable request.

I know he has a linuxified Playstation, so he might have other fun toys.

Dustin

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:47:37 Dustin Laurence wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 12:38 PM, David Greene wrote:
> > ...Either this or
> > virtualization would work but both are complicated to set up, raising
the
> > bar to participate.
>
> Is it?  I don't really know anything about it, but on a whim read just
> enough to know the name of the user-space manager program I needed,
> installed the tools on Fedora 12, created a virtual machine by following
> the on-screen directions, and installing from a Debian 32-bit .iso.  It
> couldn't have been simpler without someone else actually using the
mouse
> for me. :-)
Which manager are you using?  I had a heck of a time setting up virt-manager.
Perhaps Fedora does a better job integrating it than Debian.  It wouldn't
surprise me.  I'm glad it's easy somewhere.  :)
> > It strikes me that we also have an issue with gcc version.  As
> > demonstrated by PR6616, compiler versions matter.  It seems we will
need
> > to settle on a standard compiler for each release to avoid some of the
> > confusion that can delay releases.  What do the buildbots use? 
> > Unfortunately, this again makes things more complicated as it requires
> > testers to install specific versions of compilers.  Linux
distributions
> > don't always make that easy.
>
> Wouldn't the rest of the build environment also matter?
To a point, yes, but the compiler is the biggest factor, I think.  I
don't imagine libc would mess things up too often, although a libstdc++
difference (I suspect) did prevent me from seeing a build failure recently.
> Another nice thing about virtual images is you can have many per actual
> machine, provided you go to the trouble of installing them.  You can
Right.
> have one for the current version of every popular Linux distro and BSD
> in existence and run the ones you want to test that day.  That ensures
> you get something close to the build environments people are using, anyway.
I agree.  It would be good to have a list of build systems we want working
for each release, as a guide to testers on what they should set up if 
possible.  I suppose Tanya is the one to decide which platforms are
release critical.
> I know he has a linuxified Playstation, so he might have other fun toys.
Tell him not to update to the latest firmware!  :)

                              -Dave