[lldb-dev] Managing Clang and LLVM dependencies systematically

Kate Stone katherine_stone at apple.com
Tue Nov 18 17:04:06 PST 2014

I've made a point of prioritizing getting our tests to run cleanly here, so it would be a good time for the community to do likewise for other platforms.  Among other benefits, Improving the signal/noise ratio for test failures will make the message to LLVM a lot clearer.

Kate Stone k8stone at apple.com
 Xcode Runtime Analysis Tools

> On Nov 18, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
>> I actually think it is good that incompatible changes to llvm break the lldb build bots right away.  Then they will get fixed in lldb right after the change was made when it is clear in people's minds what just went on.  So I wouldn't want to add any of this sort of machinery to lldb's build w.r.t. the build bots.  Now that the build-bots are running regularly, the clang folks can also see the breakage right away and just fix it, which they often do (thanks for that BTW...)  So if there were a "GOOD_LLVM" it should not be used for the build-bots.
> +1, LLDB breakages need to be more visible to Clang/LLVM developers. Currently they are not very visible, mostly for no good reason.
> Stabilizing the LLDB test suite would help, but the bots could probably be more aggressive about sending IRC or email pings when the build (not tests) fails, as this is the primary way that LLVM and Clang changes break LLDB.
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20141118/91d7c3af/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list