From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 8JUAGoGokWBYOgAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 04 May 2021 22:03:13 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id oNeuFYGokWDxIgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 04 May 2021 20:03:13 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9796D1EF36 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 22:03:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:56770 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1le1GB-0000YF-A7 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:03:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56640) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1le1G2-0000X4-7U for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:03:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1le1G1-0002fr-RZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:03:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1le1G1-0007nA-Oe for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:03:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#48024: glib-2.62.6 build fails i686 Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 20:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48024 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Efraim Flashner Received: via spool by 48024-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48024.162015857529942 (code B ref 48024); Tue, 04 May 2021 20:03:01 +0000 Received: (at 48024) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2021 20:02:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55126 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1le1Fv-0007ms-9Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:02:55 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:55114) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1le1Fq-0007mZ-Q1 for 48024@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:02:54 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1le1Fk-0004PA-3U; Tue, 04 May 2021 16:02:44 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver In-Reply-To: References: <874kftd8fl.fsf@disroot.org> <20210426172652.005ae12b@riseup.net> <87mttjlebl.fsf@disroot.org> <871ravqeg1.fsf@netris.org> <87fsz3jx58.fsf@disroot.org> <87h7jjnqw2.fsf@netris.org> Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 16:01:54 -0400 Message-ID: <874kfinu7m.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 48024@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1620158592; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=miahn1NxDTi6xLQGHmBUgDyQ5M/pIqfmAH41fxgZt0o=; b=kvgQTlmUWiB5Jv+ydJrkzUADoINJ6wbPTnQmBV0TgZoiSt44Y2UK9OWVzcCbG54VeQ6gjN DpzwIb4tf0dsTG6vmY9ZM6N0qha1C6UqGvhRQzSrmLjvSYiKHSaWnJD5DXBxtXIjhmGIyH JBz7dSGsAq6qoKmGMZaywzcsfbnVU3jUMlsVWVT7wqWi8HDeVxYyeWCFeN22F1+6DcJJV/ tiAFYnqJk5yEo115KQGnDc2uwBQYQNPwpeDD+y3835kfQEhtD0XIHHbBD0V75kdsnRc2pF uWNJLxDE/0SNEKAvzEoZYKyFaV6+vS8DfOYhlnP3HhDh6aWBfH43q7ug05B7Lw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1620158592; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=r/e+jVA1bSbcqVL/3yrPUxGGt52kzAV/HFHaBiiJfYilBUO1iJ/dro8g1Tqb816VkXyVzZ TurHt9MLCd8CgbqHRNPg59B98r7ucIVOGB+5tBDlzn4+WnOgp/TDaiBKBDyYQQED3gdUwM RoVnvpJCOOxQeVVApfSKcVELhjJnWdhzjPferdS88VahOiIw5Xr7lXyHeXqatnJHy9Kb/G p+7sqpHPLSEZq49SQQ8PBsf8nGHawe5lWepKrUBRItlgRchGRH/C15nsSHMJ8xVRLAI6uc mlscs+AOwUqHnkKL8cJloU6l9BTdkLWzL4T1UkgNM5wslM1APDnuCAslmfY5Dg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -0.96 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 9796D1EF36 X-Spam-Score: -0.96 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: xlF6q3UF8A5P Hi Efraim, Efraim Flashner writes: > In glib-2.68 test_timeout and test_timeout_slow are set to 60 and 180 > respectively. Right. Unfortunately, these timeouts are too short for many slower machines, such as 32-bit ARM systems. Bone Baboon has also recently reported being unable to build 'glib' on a 32-bit i686 system due to these timeouts, even when making extreme efforts to reduce load from other processes. > As I understand it, the tests which are are tagged '+slow' get the > test_timeout_slow property, with the test taking the longest on that > machine was glib:glib+slow / gvariant, at 65 seconds. By comparison, on > my Ryzen 3900XT machine it took 2.58 seconds. I figured even at double > that time it still fell within the 180 seconds given by default in the > test suite so it was likely safe to remove the substitution entirely. I think that this recently-reported bug () demonstrates that we can't safely remove the substitution. > I don't have other suitably slow hardware to test on, but I am building > it on my aarch64 board too, so I should be able to say in a day or two > if it works there. I don't see how a build test on your aarch64 board is relevant here. As the comment above the 'increase-test-timeout' phase indicated, the timeouts were increased for the sake of slower 32-bit ARM boards. I think that we should re-introduce the 'increase-test-timeout' phase for all systems on the 'core-updates' branch. Is there a disadvantage, besides having to wait a couple more minutes if a test fails to terminate? What do you think? Regards, Mark -- Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about .