Skip to content

Add arm64 case on Travis.#2559

Merged
k0kubun merged 1 commit into
ruby:masterfrom
junaruga:feature/travis-ci-arm64
Oct 16, 2019
Merged

Add arm64 case on Travis.#2559
k0kubun merged 1 commit into
ruby:masterfrom
junaruga:feature/travis-ci-arm64

Conversation

@junaruga

@junaruga junaruga commented Oct 15, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR is pointed out from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16234

I added arch64 (arm64) case with arch: arm64 syntax as allow_failures.
Because the 1 test was failed on my forked repository's test like this.

https://travis-ci.org/junaruga/ruby/jobs/598309782#L2635

1)
Process.spawn joins the specified process group if pgroup: pgid FAILED
Expected (STDOUT): "0"
          but got: "34127"
Backtrace
/home/travis/build/junaruga/ruby/spec/ruby/core/process/spawn_spec.rb:334:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
/home/travis/build/junaruga/ruby/spec/ruby/core/process/spawn_spec.rb:32:in `<top (required)>'
Finished in 139.480640 seconds
3775 files, 30931 examples, 126138 expectations, 1 failure, 0 errors, 0 tagged

ccache deb package needed to be installed on arch: arm64 environment.

@k0kubun

k0kubun commented Oct 15, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Looks good, but in this repository we're facing https://travis-ci.org/ruby/ruby/jobs/598321906

cp: cannot create regular file '../../.ext/common/pathname.rb': Permission denied
make[2]: *** [../../.ext/common/pathname.rb] Error 1
Makefile:207: recipe for target '../../.ext/common/pathname.rb' failed
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/travis/build/ruby/ruby/build/ext/pathname'
exts.mk:250: recipe for target 'ext/pathname/all' failed
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/travis/build/ruby/ruby/build'
make[1]: *** [ext/pathname/all] Error 2
uncommon.mk:293: recipe for target 'build-ext' failed
make: *** [build-ext] Error 2

I suspected it's due to ccache / travis cache issues, but it has failed several times even after purging all Travis cache on ruby/ruby. Maybe we should drop build cache (at least for arm64)?

@junaruga

junaruga commented Oct 15, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Looks good, but in this repository we're facing https://travis-ci.org/ruby/ruby/jobs/598321906

I see. I have never seen the error when running on my forked repository.

I suspected it's due to ccache / travis cache issues, but it has failed several times even after purging all Travis cache on ruby/ruby. Maybe we should drop build cache (at least for arm64)?

Sure. I am okay to drop the build cache at least for arm64.
But I have no idea about how to drop it.

@k0kubun

k0kubun commented Oct 16, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

OK. We could do that separately. Let's see what happens on master branch first. As it worked on your fork, something might happen at some point.

@k0kubun k0kubun merged commit d97229d into ruby:master Oct 16, 2019
matzbot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2019
Follow up #2559

According to experiments in #2560,
disabling cache seems to make arm64 build succeed.
@junaruga

junaruga commented Oct 16, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks for your help!

The #34599.8 (the commit "Disable ccache on arm64 build" on master branch) is failed as we expected.
https://travis-ci.org/ruby/ruby/jobs/598491697#L2574

1)
Process.spawn joins the specified process group if pgroup: pgid FAILED
Expected (STDOUT): "0"
          but got: "33412"
Backtrace
/home/travis/build/ruby/ruby/spec/ruby/core/process/spawn_spec.rb:334:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
/home/travis/build/ruby/ruby/spec/ruby/core/process/spawn_spec.rb:32:in `<top (required)>'
Finished in 134.152915 seconds
3775 files, 30931 examples, 128704 expectations, 1 failure, 0 errors, 0 tagged

But the next commit, that is #34600.8 (the commit "Remove arm64 build from Drone" on master branch), is failed again for cp: cannot create regular file '../../.ext/common/pathname.rb': Permission denied.
https://travis-ci.org/ruby/ruby/jobs/598491972#L2318

@k0kubun

k0kubun commented Oct 16, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hmm, right. Maybe we need some another workaround like updating timestamp of files recursively on our own.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants