[PATCH] D25683: [docs] Increase minimum supported GCC version for building LLVM to 4.8

Fri Oct 28 08:01:32 PDT 2016

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I wanted to follow up to see whether the bot got upgraded - I never saw a formal revert request so I didn't do that. Hoping that it got resolved!
>>
>> Tanya is working on getting the bot upgraded, but I have not heard an
>> ETA on when the upgrade will happen. Currently, the attribute
>> documentation is out of date on the public-facing web site because of
>> this. For instance r285391 added documentation for a new attribute,
>> and it's not reflected on
>> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html
>>
>> I was holding off on the revert request to see if the bot could get
>> upgraded before the docs got stale, but it seems that time has passed
>> -- how bad would it be to revert this change temporarily and then
>> commit once the bot is solved?
>
>
> I could do that, it isn't hard. Another possibility would be to just temporarily revert the cmake portion of this change, and leave the doc change in place. That way we don't revert the intent, but allow the documentation bot to succeed until it is upgraded. WDYT?

I think that's the best of both worlds; good idea!

~Aaron

>
> Teresa
>
>>
>> ~Aaron
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Teresa
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It turns out that there *may* be a problem with dropping GCC 4.7 right
>> >> >>> now. It seems that our documentation builder (which is not a public
>> >> >>> bot, unfortunately) that is used for building the public-facing
>> >> >>> attribute and compiler option documents is on a machine running GCC
>> >> >>> 4.7. I've alerted the person maintaining the bot about it, but I'm not
>> >> >>> certain how soon that builder will be switched over (it may already be
>> >> >>> in the process of switching, for all I know).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I apologize for not recognizing this earlier, but it turns out that a
>> >> >>> recent commit broke that bot this morning, which is how I realized
>> >> >>> that the bot is still on GCC 4.7.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok do we need to revert this change? If so, how long would it take to get the bot upgraded to gcc 4.8? I am surprised the bot has been working though - this change was motivated by multiple reports of clang and LLVM not building with gcc 4.7. Or is it just building documentation?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we may need to revert this change, but I'll know for sure
>> >> > tomorrow when the bot gives me a status report.
>> >>
>> >> I woke up this morning to a status report:
>> >>
>> >> Updated to revision 284575.
>> >> CMake Error at cmake/modules/CheckCompilerVersion.cmake:12 (message):
>> >>   Host GCC version must be at least 4.8!
>> >> Call Stack (most recent call first):
>> >>   cmake/config-ix.cmake:14 (include)
>> >>   CMakeLists.txt:517 (include)
>> >>
>> >> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
>> >> See also "/opt/llvm/build.attributes/CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log".
>> >> See also "/opt/llvm/build.attributes/CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log".
>> >>
>> >> So it looks like this patch effectively disables generation of the
>> >> public documentation for attributes and compiler options. We don't
>> >> change those so frequently that a revert is critical, but unless we
>> >> can get the bot updated reasonably soon, this would mean our public
>> >> docs for those two things are basically in stasis.
>> >>
>> >> I will continue to push for the bot upgrade, but I am not able to
>> >> control the process, only request it.
>> >>
>> >> ~Aaron
>> >>
>> >> > I'm a consumer of this
>> >> > bot, but not the producer of it. I don't have access to the bot, but
>> >> > it sends me an automatic status update after it builds the
>> >> > documentation, which is done on a daily schedule.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've emailed Tanya (who helped me get this builder set up) about
>> >> > upgrading the bot, but I've not heard back on the status or a
>> >> > timeline. AFAIK, the bot is only trying to build the clang-tblgen tool
>> >> > (and what it relies on), which probably explains why it hasn't broken
>> >> > until yesterday.
>> >> >
>> >> > ~Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Teresa
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ~Aaron
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-commits
>> >> >>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> > rengolin accepted this revision.
>> >> >>> > rengolin added a comment.
>> >> >>> > This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25683#573000, @jlebar wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> If someone really wants to use gcc 4.7, nothing is stopping them from going into cmake and commenting out this line.  :)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Good point. :)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > LGTM. Thanks!
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D25683
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> > llvm-commits mailing list
>> >> >>> > llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> >> >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
>
>
>
>
> --
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413