From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16130C433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1386671AbiDUTTb (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:19:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57258 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230062AbiDUTT3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:19:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4184B41A for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id g23so742585edy.13 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gkWTLxXs68/CinGpeydEhHMVb65ipoA3yVoFFmcsGjA=; b=GsUYomrOafHXB1l9ymU2ES1DM7NWycs788/TbB8GcdHlUp7IFDrgjRsR1E6Y1X5nKj y1Sl+DTbPMl8N7KLXJzRUTTYpaVdXZsIf03U/Yc3RssyMKK3iv9d7ZMdZtMUkUFNuRwE eymMJM9QyQuQGS9SfCLJLqwD8OagWKCI6BBw41VmMBYO+/HZ9p2NiwBNUvHdPCaniGiT dwnfv9nDFDXOcDombu1+Iy/WpLKT9numbzoguFQE9vdnzeiJ0NBHCAF9fftaGSD8KlHq dRsjEGEEEoDSjX04eJ2huH9wT9Hgon4aGsQt+wH8nKj3eZoy9VuvzlQCQ+F+QUckrvOc 9pAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gkWTLxXs68/CinGpeydEhHMVb65ipoA3yVoFFmcsGjA=; b=n4hPfEwcp+ouUYtsnXpxdcKN/gGRY+LdLJEZoJHV4ROcfADZqH8Sx4/gzsjJpxcI78 ls8PUCMznGky418OEm+jSBcZ19Qw9FnzpMX/BBikvOJ4twFBTtvUScd7GUm8Ey9lf6am vHCGIQH2FKhZXSZHtQPjFWZiWnPMBdXpQVpi30fomUb1yoqQgaaPrNWbj3SEpZrBrc5r Yuaq4r/vZV7a9nVn6Q4lQHIamdLeC7ZuSpXHLfQ9VmcxTB1mv9Tn7+ZOI8GNV+3KrK0Z /QQ8pdbJGOaSO+9Qk2DHMcXHG3h88ad6BCDrWKVqle4qFH6tsIG6ESBhxauLsZc3aSQM 87xQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309Xn7TmlAoh5dI3Eh+6/xPQ0VwgOY+yaAs++FSYOXbocy0Fi43 6moOWMyQfGu7afeP9IrOMvo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVzWQxZsj/9SXyZPBmQcyNAcicUNtPkC4rBBViarxqKUxCITeLEX5CO2489ezqjndJrEeOow== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:516e:b0:41d:79f1:ff43 with SMTP id d14-20020a056402516e00b0041d79f1ff43mr1089442ede.141.1650568597397; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmgdl (j120189.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.120.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y19-20020a056402359300b00423e51be1cesm6792122edc.64.2022.04.21.12.16.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nhcI8-0089rT-4Q; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:16:36 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Carlo Arenas , Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] CI: select CC based on CC_PACKAGE (again) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:13:57 +0200 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.7.12 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <220421.867d7i6ycr.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 21 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > >> Fix a regression in 707d2f2fe86 (CI: use "$runs_on_pool", not >> "$jobname" to select packages & config, 2021-11-23). >> >> In that commit I changed CC=3Dgcc from CC=3Dgcc-9, but on OSX the "gcc" = in >> $PATH points to clang, we need to use gcc-9 instead. Likewise for the >> linux-gcc job CC=3Dgcc-8 was changed to the implicit CC=3Dgcc, which wou= ld >> select GCC 9.4.0 instead of GCC 8.4.0. > > Thanks for diagnosing how things were broken. > >> On Thu, Apr 21 2022, Phillip Wood wrote: >> >>> CC is set in .github/workflows/main.yaml for the ubuntu and macos jobs >>> so I think they will not fallback to using CC_PACKAGE and therefore >>> not pick up the correct compiler. >> ... >> diff --git a/.github/workflows/main.yml b/.github/workflows/main.yml >> index c35200defb9..f12819a00d7 100644 >> --- a/.github/workflows/main.yml >> +++ b/.github/workflows/main.yml >> @@ -236,7 +236,6 @@ jobs: >> - jobname: linux-TEST-vars >> cc: gcc >> os: ubuntu >> - cc_package: gcc-8 >> pool: ubuntu-latest >> - jobname: osx-clang >> cc: clang >> diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh >> index cbc2f8f1caa..86e37da9bc5 100755 >> --- a/ci/lib.sh >> +++ b/ci/lib.sh >> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ then >> test macos !=3D "$CI_OS_NAME" || CI_OS_NAME=3Dosx >> CI_REPO_SLUG=3D"$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" >> CI_JOB_ID=3D"$GITHUB_RUN_ID" >> - CC=3D"${CC:-gcc}" >> + CC=3D"${CC_PACKAGE:-${CC:-gcc}}" >> DONT_SKIP_TAGS=3Dt >>=20=20 >> cache_dir=3D"$HOME/none" > > OK, so we favor CC_PACKAGE (from the matrix.vector.cc_package) if > set, and then cc (again, from the matrix.vector.cc) if set, and then > finally use "gcc" as a fallback. In the osx-gcc job, cc_package is > set to gcc-9 while in the osx-clang, cc is gcc that confusingly calls > for clang. That sounds like it would do the right thing for two > macs. Yes. > For other jobs with different settings for cc and cc_package, does > this have any effect? I do not think I saw any mention in the > proposed log message. > > vector.cc vector.cc_package old new > linux-clang clang - clang clang > linux-sha256 clang - clang clang > linux-gcc gcc gcc-8 gcc gcc-8 > osx-clang clang - clang clang > osx-gcc gcc gcc-9 clang gcc-9 > linux-gcc-default gcc - gcc gcc > > So, linux-gcc job used to use whichever "gcc" the platform gave us, > but now it explicitly asks for gcc-8, which may or may not be > different from what linux-gcc-default uses, and there is no other > difference by this change. We may get a better test coverage (if > the default gcc is not gcc-8) or no improvement (if the default is > gcc-8), so it is a strict improvement worth recording as an intended > side effect in the proposed log message to help future developers. > > Other than that, looks good to me. I'm happy to rephrase it however you'd like, but I'm a bit confused by the "saw any mention in the proposed log message". I'm fairly sure paragraph 2 onwards covers this, i.e. how linux-gcc's behavior is changed (as it also regressed). What I suppose is left undiscussed is that jobs that don't define CC_PACKAGE at all won't be impacted, is that what you wanted to be explicitly mentioned?