[cfe-dev] Expanding the Clang Status page to report the status of several OSes and projects

[Sandeep Patel]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Ruben Van Boxem
<vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> wrote:
> Op 3 aug. 2011 21:28 schreef "Sandeep Patel" <deeppatel1987 at gmail.com> het
> volgende:
>
>>
>> Buildbots that test MinGW in one way or another:
>>
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-native-mingw32
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-native-mingw32-win7
>>
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-mingw32-cross-arm-linux-gnueabi-hard-float
>>
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-build-x86_64-darwin10-x-mingw32-x-armeabi
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-darwin10-self-mingw32
>>
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-darwin10-cross-mingw32
>>
>> What additional coverage would you like to see?
>
> Yes, i noticed these; they test the llvm/clang build, but don't touch real
> world projects. This is important for a compiler, as some (most) changes
> won't directly affect the internal clang build/test process. My first email
> on the subject suggested some external common libraries with extensive test
> suites that could help a build bot find more exotic bugs.

Would adding an LNT bot cover this?

> Completely orthogonal to this, is a test for MinGW-w64, including 64-bit. Or
> even a visual studio test bot. All these would be nice to have. I understand
> the later might be harder (visual studio won't run in Unix environments...)

A MinG4-w64 test would be great. I wasn't under the impression that
build could even bootstrap yet.

There was an MSVC bot, but it's been down a long time.

deep

> Thanks for the interest!
>
> Ruben
>
>>
>> deep
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2011/8/1 Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Aug 1, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
>> >>>> Concretely, I suggest a larger table with colors like the C++0x
>> >>>> table,
>> >>>> with red = doesn't build, orange/yellow: builds, but tests fail due
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> a problem in clang (which also means that the tests pass for GCC),
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> green is that it builds and all tests pass without a hitch. Links
>> >>>> could be placed to bug reports about the issue, where detailed
>> >>>> information for interested developers could be placed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The libraries I suggest that should be used as a "quality mark" are
>> >>>> (more are of course welcome!):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Qt: Huge GUI and core library framework. High quality code that is
>> >>>> extremely cross-platform. Has an internal test suite, but I haven't
>> >>>> yet figured out how to run it (I can't as the build fails on Windows)
>> >>>> wxWidgets: that other tadbit less huge GUI and core framework. Also
>> >>>> high quality code.
>> >>>> GSL: GNU Scientific library: comprehensive test suite.
>> >>>> FFTW: Known around the world, comprehensive test suite
>> >>>> Eigen: idem
>> >>>> Flac: idem
>> >>>> GMP, MPFR, MPC, PPL, CLooG: very fragile and comprehensive libraries.
>> >>>> Also all feature a nice test suite.
>> >>>> Perhaps all the open source graphics libraries (Tiff, png, jpeg,
>> >>>> turbojpeg...)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What do you guys think? I do not know HTML, so the table editing
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> have to be almost trivial for me to get it done :s. I can test
>> >>>> regularly and see if certain revisions fix the problem (on Windows).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The problem with putting these tables up on a web page is that they
>> >>> get out of date very, very quickly. So, for them to be useful, they really
>> >>> need to be updated automatically. Then best way to do that, in my mind,
>> >>> would be to set up a buildbot that tests these projects. Bring the buildbot
>> >>> online when one of the projects starts working on that platform, and keep it
>> >>> running: the buildbot will tell us when things are broken, so we won't
>> >>> regress.
>> >>
>> >> I understand, that's probably the reason it was removed in the first
>> >> place. The buildbot is an awesome idea, and LLVM/Clang wouldn't be the
>> >> first Apple sponsored project to have every commit go through a
>> >> build+test project (yes, I'm looking at you, WebKit). This kind of
>> >> large-scale infrastructure would have to be LLVM-wide to be effective,
>> >> as Clang and LLVM development are intertwined.
>> >>
>> >> Are there any plans for such a buildbot and continuous testing
>> >> infrastructure?
>> >
>> > Well, there's already
>> >
>> >        http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/
>> >
>> > and there are plans to get a much-expanded, much-improved version online
>> > in the near future. However, I don't know if anyone has plans to actually
>> > bring buildbots online for MinGW specifically, or introduce your suggested
>> > libraries into the mix.
>> >
>> >        - Doug
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >
>