On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:22:22PM -0800, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2012-11-13 5:03 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: > >On 11/13/12 4:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > >>But the point here is that unless we know for sure that we're dealing > >>with a compiler bug, disabling Linux PGO builds may just wallpaper over > >>the problem. > > > >That's quite possible, and I'm sure there are other currently-used ways > >to exercise the code that could expose other lurking issues. The > >standard can't be perfection. So disabling PGO sounds like it can be a > >reasonable tradeoff to have more time to focus on other bugs that > >matter. Especially given that distros are not shipping PGO builds, and > >so to a certain degree we're just making work for ourselves here. > > > >Alternatively: It's a zero-sum game. We need to be smart about about > >where we focus resources, and there seems to be a pretty compelling > >claim (IMO, and I've no skin in it :) that Linux PGO is a poor > >cost/benefit. > > Let me try to be more clear. Assuming that the assertion that the > bug in question is not caused by the PGO compiler miscompiling, > turning off PGO in order to move on would be the wrong thing to do. > If it's only affecting a single test, then that test should be > disabled. Now, we don't know whether that assumption is correct or > not, as far as I can tell from reading the bug.
As a matter of fact, I failed to reproduce a crash locally with a tinderbox build that is supposed to crash. So either i blatantly failed at reproducing the conditions that should trigger the crash, or it's a race condition. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
