Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1926723003:
Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 7 months ago by Dirk Pranke Modified:
4 years, 7 months ago CC:
chromium-reviews Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master Project:
chromium Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionTry to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders.
This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to
'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will
get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well.
This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues
that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN.
This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the
CQ, but we don't know by how much.
We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all
should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down.
R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org
BUG=605318
Committed: https://crrev.com/9711369180264c97e942e0b6be83c3e17db5e326
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#390488}
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : use gn_all instead of all #Messages
Total messages: 17 (6 generated)
if analyze is going to stop working (for compiles), that's a showstopper IMO. will analyze also stop working for figuring out which tests to run?
Description was changed from ========== Try to build 'all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. In particular, building 'all' instead of 'gn_all' will defeat the point of the `analyze` step (see crbug.com/555273 for why), and so this may be a serious issue. If so, we should change the target to 'gn_all' (which will work) and attempt to ensure that 'gn_all' really includes everything that 'all' does. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 ========== to ========== Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 ==========
On 2016/04/28 15:33:21, jam wrote: > if analyze is going to stop working (for compiles), that's a showstopper IMO. > > will analyze also stop working for figuring out which tests to run? Yes, you would run all of the tests as well. I've switched things to 'gn_all'. Please take another look?
The CQ bit was checked by dpranke@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1926723003/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1926723003/20001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
On 2016/04/28 19:28:04, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2016/04/28 15:33:21, jam wrote: > > if analyze is going to stop working (for compiles), that's a showstopper IMO. > > > > will analyze also stop working for figuring out which tests to run? > > Yes, you would run all of the tests as well. > > I've switched things to 'gn_all'. Please take another look? lgtm
The CQ bit was checked by dpranke@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1926723003/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1926723003/20001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 ========== to ========== Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/9711369180264c97e942e0b6be83c3e17db5e326 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#390488}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 ========== to ========== Try to build 'gn_all' on Win x64 builders. This CL adds the 'gn_all' additional_compile_target to 'Win x64 Builder' and 'Win x64 Builder (dbg)'; the former will get mirrored onto 'win_chromium_x64_rel_ng' in the CQ as well. This should allow us to catch a lot more of the compile-related issues that seem to be cropping up as we switch the bots to GN. This will likely increase the cycle times for the builder in the CQ, but we don't know by how much. We don't build 'all' because of crbug.com/555273. In theory, gn_all should build everything that all does except for stamp files (any discrepancy is a bug), but in practice we're probably missing some things and need to hunt them down. R=jam@chromium.org, brucedawson@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org BUG=605318 Committed: https://crrev.com/9711369180264c97e942e0b6be83c3e17db5e326 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#390488} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
(from IM) What monitoring is being done to ensure that CQ doesn't regress? I'm seeing queues on win & win64 builders now, and viceroy shows cycle time going up for both win32 and win64. If we don't have good monitoring, we should revert until we do IMO.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
A revert of this CL (patchset #2 id:20001) has been created in https://codereview.chromium.org/1952863004/ by jam@chromium.org. The reason for reverting is: To see if windows bots' cycle time recovers.. |
