RESOLVED FIXED 55527
[chromium] add support for hardy 64 baselines to NRWT 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55527
Summary [chromium] add support for hardy 64 baselines to NRWT
Tony Chang
Reported 2011-03-01 16:43:42 PST
There's now a WebKit Linux 64 builder on the chromium canary waterfall. To make it go green, we need to add 64 bit baselines (only 42 or so).
Attachments
Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 1 2011-03-01 17:26:08 PST
filed a sub-bug for the NRWT changes; we can use this for the actual baselines.
Tony Chang
Comment 2 2011-03-09 14:26:25 PST
Sorry, this fell off my radar. Creating a hardy 64 chroot now . . .
Tony Chang
Comment 3 2011-03-09 14:42:30 PST
Actually, the bot is running Lucid 64, so I will have my results be based on that.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 4 2011-03-09 15:30:05 PST
Hmm. That might confuse things, since now there are two variables at play. When we deprecate hardy, do we think 64-bit or 32-bit will be more common? I vote for 64-bit. Then we'd need chromium-linux chromium-linux-x86 chromium-linux-hardy chromium-linux-hardy-x86 With the following fallback paths; 'x86' : 'chromium-linux' 'hardy': 'chromium-linux' 'hardy-x86': 'chromium-linux-hardy', 'chromium-linux-x86', 'chromium-linux' If we wanted to support all four combinations. Arguably we can ignore 'chromium-linux-hardy', which would be a set of 64-bit hardy baselines. I assume we'll still need to support a 32-bit Lucid version? Also, it's a bit unclear if 32-bit Hardy would want to fallback to 32-bit Lucid first, 64-bit Hardy first, or neither and go straight to 64-bit Lucid. I sure hope reftests solve this level of diffing ... -- Dirk
Tony Chang
Comment 5 2011-03-09 15:37:30 PST
We don't have to support all possible combinations, we only need to support what the bots and devs are running. I'll check in lucid 64 results for now. When we drop hardy support, we will only have chromium-linux which will be lucid 64.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 6 2011-03-09 15:39:50 PST
*** Bug 47644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Dirk Pranke
Comment 7 2011-03-09 15:42:01 PST
(In reply to comment #5) > We don't have to support all possible combinations, we only need to support what the bots and devs are running. > > I'll check in lucid 64 results for now. When we drop hardy support, we will only have chromium-linux which will be lucid 64. Okay, I agree with this, but where are you going to check the files in? Into chromium-linux-x86_64, or chromium-linux and then move the 32-bit hardy baselines somewhere?
Tony Chang
Comment 8 2011-03-09 15:46:19 PST
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > We don't have to support all possible combinations, we only need to support what the bots and devs are running. > > > > I'll check in lucid 64 results for now. When we drop hardy support, we will only have chromium-linux which will be lucid 64. > > Okay, I agree with this, but where are you going to check the files in? Into chromium-linux-x86_64, or chromium-linux and then move the 32-bit hardy baselines somewhere? Since the main bots are hardy 32 right now, I'm going to check in lucid 64 results into chromium-linux-x86_64. Once the hardy bots are gone from the waterfall, we can move the x86_64 results into chromium-linux and remove the chromium-linux-x86_64 directory.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 9 2011-03-09 15:56:21 PST
So you don't think we'll want both 32-bit and 64-bit bots in the post-hardy future?
Tony Chang
Comment 10 2011-03-09 16:00:29 PST
(In reply to comment #9) > So you don't think we'll want both 32-bit and 64-bit bots in the post-hardy future? I don't think the difference in coverage is that important. I mean, we've gone this long without 64-bit bots and it hasn't really been a problem. I suspect at this point most Linux users are using a 64-bit version. If we decide it's important and we set up bots for 32-bit lucid, it wouldn't be hard for us to check in results to chromium-linux-x86 at that time.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 11 2011-03-09 16:06:54 PST
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > So you don't think we'll want both 32-bit and 64-bit bots in the post-hardy future? > > I don't think the difference in coverage is that important. I mean, we've gone this long without 64-bit bots and it hasn't really been a problem. I suspect at this point most Linux users are using a 64-bit version. > This is true, but historically we've done a very poor job of supporting multiple configurations that produce different results on any platform. I am hoping this starts to change. > If we decide it's important and we set up bots for 32-bit lucid, it wouldn't be hard for us to check in results to chromium-linux-x86 at that time. That sounds fine. Thanks!
James Robinson
Comment 12 2011-03-09 16:35:34 PST
Going to lucid does not imply we can drop 32 bit - I think a lot of lower-end hardware is likely to stay 32 bit for the forseeable future - for example all chromeos hardware that I know of is 32 bit. We could decide we don't care about testing on that configuration, I suppose. That seems a bit scary.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.