r225958 - Use the integrated assembler by default on 32-bit PowerPC and SPARC.

Rafael EspĂ­ndola rafael.espindola at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 06:01:12 PST 2015

>> Rafael indicated in this thread that there was an openbsd bot still
>> failing. I don't know which one, but it seemed really weird to have a
>> report that a build bot was failing and *no* reply. Not a "wait, where?"
>> if you couldn't find it, or a "I'm on it" if its getting fixed.
> Any failures with the OpenBSD build bot at the moment are pre-existing
> failures which have no relation to this diff. Some of the tests are
> broken using command line parameters not specified by POSIX with sed,
> mv, head and some others. The change was run with and without the patch
> and the same tests were failing either way. Mentioning this in relation
> to this diff when the tests are not failing due to this diff is
> irrelevant.

A bit of history. Sorry that the timezone made me jump at this late.

* The original patches were sent for review, approved and committed
(225213, 225212).
* The reviewers missed the concerns Chandler voiced, but that is a
normal issue and why we have a second post commit review.
* The big breach of protocol is that Brad could not test the patches
since there were many failures on openbsd. He failed to mention that
on the review and committed the patches.
* The bots went red and Duncan reverted the patches.
* Brad was pointed at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html which
says "Code must pass the llvm/test test suite." and asked to in the
future email patches saying he is unable to test them an asking
someone else to test and commit.
* He has instead committed the patches again.
* This time it doesn't look like there are any failures, but we cannot
depend on luck. Developers must really run check-all and watch the

So Brad, for future patches, make sure you can test them. It is up to
you if you first fix the remaining failures on openbsd or install
linux in a VM, but you must be able to test your changes in order to
commit them.

As for the patches already committed. Is it the consensus of the
thread that they can stay on trunk but we should make sure they are
not in 3.6?


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list