Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop march from platforms.yml if there is no use #312

Open
axel-h opened this issue Jan 21, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Drop march from platforms.yml if there is no use #312

axel-h opened this issue Jan 21, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@axel-h
Copy link
Member

axel-h commented Jan 21, 2024

This is a follow-up from #283 (comment) to check if march has a deeper usage. If not, it could be removed to avoid confusion. Or replaced by something more clear as a selector. Seems the current fields that exist have a certain overlapping already from the history. Having the sel4arch as unification might be a way to go?

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Jan 22, 2024

The main current use is as a selector in the hardware build matrix so that we can have multiple jobs for e.g. Arm (armv7a, armv8a, previously also armv6). They're not the same as Arm 32 bit and Arm 64 bit, although that could be another set of dimensions to use for slicing the build matrix.

E.g. we could drop march and split by (arch, mode, compiler). This would leave arm, 32, x as the two largest jobs, probably longer than the current armv8a jobs. So maybe one more dimension that would cut arm, 32, x roughly in half.

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Jan 22, 2024

Maybe MCS, i.e. (arch, MCS on/off, mode, compiler). That should be roughly half the run time of the previous jobs.

@axel-h
Copy link
Member Author

axel-h commented Jan 22, 2024

If the worry is the time, we could also group per platform. I tried this by having the python script generate the matrix from platforms.yml for builds also.
Showing the results more nicely seems a separate thing anyway, see #130

@lsf37
Copy link
Member

lsf37 commented Jan 22, 2024

You're right, we should probably at least try that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants