Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:05 PM David Greene wrote: > > I'm inclined to the direction suggested by others that the monorepo is > > orthogonal to this issue and top level tests might not be the right > thing. > > > > lldb already does end-to-end testing in its tests, for instance. > > > > Clang do

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/2019 05:51 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Stellard > wrote: > > On 10/16/2019 07:23 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote: > > +1. And put it in the email (subject?). While it’s possible to derive > a count from a hash manuall

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

> I'm inclined to the direction suggested by others that the monorepo is > orthogonal to this issue and top level tests might not be the right thing. > > lldb already does end-to-end testing in its tests, for instance. > > Clang does in some tests (the place I always hit is anything that's > config

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/19 5:51 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:46 PM Tom Stellard > wrote: On 10/16/2019 07:23 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote: > +1.  And put it in the email (subject?).  While it’s possible to derive a count from a hash manua

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/2019 07:23 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote: > +1. And put it in the email (subject?). While it’s possible to derive a > count from a hash manually, better to have it in the email in the first > place. You can’t rely on order-of-email-delivery to reflect order-of-commit. > I spent some time

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:09 PM Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > FWIW I'm personally cautiously non-optimistic about this, > but maybe i'm just not seeing the whole picture of the proposal. > > Both checking final asm, and checking more than one layer of abstraction > f

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:54 PM David Greene via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Renato Golin via Openmp-dev writes: > > > But if we have some consensus on doing a clean job, then I would > > actually like to have that kind of intermediary check (diagnostics, > > warnings, etc) on mos

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

"Robinson, Paul via Openmp-dev" writes: >> I always ran check-all before every patch, FWIW. > > Yep. Although I run check-all before *starting* on a patch, to make sure > the starting point is clean. It usually is, but I've been caught enough > times to be slightly wary. This is interesting.

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

Renato Golin via Openmp-dev writes: > But if we have some consensus on doing a clean job, then I would > actually like to have that kind of intermediary check (diagnostics, > warnings, etc) on most test-suite tests, which would cover at least > the main vectorisation issues. Later, we could add m

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] How soon after the GitHub migration should committing with git-llvm become optional?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Marcus Johnson via llvm-dev < >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

> -Original Message- > From: Tom Stellard > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:14 PM > To: Roman Lebedev > Cc: Robinson, Paul ; Shoaib Meenai > ; Mehdi AMINI ; llvm- > d...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev ; openmp-dev (openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org) ; LLDB Dev d...@lists.llvm.org> > Subject:

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/2019 12:02 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:55 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> On 10/16/2019 07:31 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: >>> +1, please. >>> >>> Also, putting a tag on the *first* commit in the repo, >>> and doing `git describe --match FIRST_COMMIT_TAG` will be *great*

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

On 10/16/2019 07:31 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > +1, please. > > Also, putting a tag on the *first* commit in the repo, > and doing `git describe --match FIRST_COMMIT_TAG` will be *great*! > Do we need to add a tag or is `git rev-list --count HEAD` good enough? -Tom > Roman. > > On Wed, Oct 16

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

+1. And put it in the email (subject?). While it’s possible to derive a count from a hash manually, better to have it in the email in the first place. You can’t rely on order-of-email-delivery to reflect order-of-commit. --paulr From: llvm-dev On Behalf Of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev Sent: W

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

Hi, Is this monotonic incrementing identifier part of the email? I think it would really complicate buildbot maintenance if we didn't have it in obvious places. For instance, we have a (hacky) monitoring page for our ARM/AArch64 buildbots [1] and it really helps a lot to just look at the commit ra