<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">> Is this an intentional omission? If not, I think it would be good to make them build+test libunwind as well, I don't think it adds a lot of overhead. I can update the bot configurations if you are all happy with allowing libunwind testing.<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">It's intentional for MIPS. We haven't added MIPS to that libunwind yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 27 May 2016 13:11<br>
<b>To:</b> Asiri Rathnayake<br>
<b>Cc:</b> nd; cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cfe-dev] [buildbots][libunwind] Why is libunwind not built / tested on most bots?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Come to think of it, should we make -DLIBCXXABI_USE_LLVM_UNWINDER=ON the default cmake option?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Asiri<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<br>
<br>
While going through the list of buildbots for libcxx [1], I realized that only the arm buildbot (Renato) is setup to build+test libunwind [2]. None of the other bots seem to pass the -DLIBCXXABI_USE_LLVM_UNWINDER=ON option. They all seem to checkout the sources
but then forgets about libunwind.<br>
<br>
Is this an intentional omission? If not, I think it would be good to make them build+test libunwind as well, I don't think it adds a lot of overhead. I can update the bot configurations if you are all happy with allowing libunwind testing.<br>
<br>
WDYT?<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
/ Asiri<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console" target="_blank">http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-arm-linux/builds/1009/steps/cmake/logs/stdio" target="_blank">
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-arm-linux/builds/1009/steps/cmake/logs/stdio</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>