On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2017 at 11:38, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> All I can say is these tests did not exist in 3.9, so I wouldn't call >> this a regression. (Well... technically, a similar test existed, but >> it was run by a different test runner which I believe is not hooked up >> to the command you are running). > > We're on a similar state for libc++ / openmp / lld on ARM and AArch64. > > libc++ works well on ARM and AArch64, but some of the tests fail > (always have), and I think Eric said it has to do with how we run them > or which ones should be disabled. > > LLD works well on AArch64 but not yet on ARM (though there were no > test failures this time). OpenMP kind of works, but there are many > failures, which we won't look into this cycle. > > Regardless of that state, we though it was a good idea to ship it as > an experimental status, so that people can try out and report bugs. > All the components above are included in both ARM and AArch64 > releases. > > Hans, > > Do you think we should have a table of production vs. experimental > quality per target on the release notes, so that users know what to > expect? Or should we just let users know that when they report bugs?
Good question, we're not doing a very good job of documenting this. And I'm not sure what would be the best way to do it. A reasonable thing to do would be to put a note on the relaese downloads page. But I'm not even sure what to put there. "OpenMP kind of works on AArch64", what does that mean to a user? It also comes back to what the nature of the release is. For me, it's a periodic best-effort-stability snapshot of what we've got, which packagers and other downstream folks build on. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
