Re: next nightly build problem

[Bruno H. <br...@cl...>]

Hi Don,

> Do you think it's adequate to just look for logs that are smaller than
> 3 MB as an indicator of failure, or look at tails of the logs as I now
> do or something else?

The size is not a reliable indicator: I've seen logs that failed, of size > 5 MB
(filled with lots of compiler warnings).

> My normal nightly test creates both a mt and a non-mt clisp and 
> then an ap5 image in each.  Since there is some #+/- mt in the
> current ap5 code, I do want to test each of those, but I don't
> think I have anything that depends on memory models.

Feel free to add such a target in Makefile.devel.

> I see two appearances of multithread in the multi build port list.
> Are those independent of #+MT ?  Using a multi thread gc which is
> independent of #+MT ?  Are any or all of the tests above #+MT ?

It's only testing two different versions of part of the GC algorithm.
One of it is suitable with #+MT, the other is not. But it's not
testing a --with-threads build so far.

Bruno