[LLVMdev] Nightly Test Machine Identification
jlaskey at apple.com
Wed Oct 18 12:53:00 PDT 2006
Too late. Made the change. I can revert, but past records have been
But why wouldn't you use a different nickname between windows and linux?
Transitioning to a new OS major version, will only take the one day
hit. You wouldn't have a prior set to compare anyway, so no loss of
info. Potentially, you get whine data for hits the OS caused (ex.,
30 tests newly fail because of header changes.)
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:43 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Reid Spencer wrote:
>>> I had upgraded my Linux kernel from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18. I suggested
>>> to Jim
>>> that changes in the minor revision number of the operating system
>>> not count as a new machine. He said he'd look into it when he has
>>> Its not a huge issue, I just didn't want to be incrementing the
>>> numbers needlessly and needed to know what it was based on.
>> Ok, seems reasonable. The nightly tester script probably
>> shouldn't be in
>> the business of trying to grok OS version #'s. Maybe OS version #
>> shouldn't be included at all.
> I think it needs to include it. Suppose someone used the same user ID,
> same nickname but changed the machine from Linux to Windows.
> even a change like Linux 2.6 to Linux 2.8 could impact performance
> significantly so it should be regarded as a new machine. The
> of dealing with the OS version #s is why Jim tabled the work for
> now. I
> agree, its an ugly mess that NightlyTest shouldn't be involved in.
> But I
> don't think the correct thing to do is remove OS version from the
> comparison altogether. I'd rather have the current functionality
> than OS
> not mattering at all.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2417 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the llvm-dev