Hi Robert. The builds end up at: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/
and include the times for each step such as: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99475/logs/armv7l-maver... http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99475/logs/armv7l-maver...
The carina machines are OMAP3s. I'm building C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C, and Obj-C++ and it takes 12 hours for the build and 16 for the testsuite.
These are on a NFS root. A ursa machine (PandaBoard) takes 5:14 to build at -j2 and 9 hours on the testsuite at -j1. 12 divided by 5.25 hours makes the Panda 2.3 x faster than the OMAP3.
-- Michael
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Robert Nelson robertcnelson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org wrote:
We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / push approach in gcc-linaro. This works fine for a reasonable cost but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a month. Ramana, Andrew, and I had a talk about this earlier in the week and I've written up the ideas here: https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/ReviewThoughts
We're a bit unique as gcc-linaro started from a mature base, running the testsuite takes days, and the product is so big that bzr takes a long time to work on it.
Hey Michael,
which target's are you actively building/testing fo (c,c++, etc?)
for reference, i'm just doing "c,c++", here's my average's..
xM: build: 14 hours, testsuite: 22 hours.. Panda: build: 9.5 hours, testsuite: 12hours..
Regards,
-- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/