[LLVMdev] Validation Update

David Greene dag at cray.com
Thu Nov 20 15:07:57 PST 2008

On Thursday 20 November 2008 16:59, Tanya M. Lattner wrote:

> > It's all in the proposal I posted a week or so ago.
> Yes, your proposal said that the community must agree on the set of tests
> used to validate it. You haven't said what the conclusion was. Also, in

True enough.  My assumption is we'll figure that out soon.  I'll post a 
separate thread to start the discussion.

> your proposal you did not specify what reference point you were going to
> use. Not everything in llvm-test passes. I will suggest that you use a
> release to get a starting reference point.

I'd rather not have to track individual regressions between releases.  I'd 
rather just pick a set of tests that passes now and add to that as more things 
start working.

> >> What are the pros and cons of this? How much does it tax the server?
> >
> > It's an extra TCP connection out to the buildbot on every commit.  I
> > would think that would be low cost compared to all the other processing
> > that has to go on.
> I'll have to talk to some people about this before committing to getting
> this done. So ping me later.

Ok, thanks.

> > I can certainly ask.  I'll let you know what I hear but be mindful that
> > if someone else steps up to coordinate validations, Cray isn't going to
> > give them access to an internal machine.  That means we'd have to revisit
> > this question in the future to find another home.  I'd rather put this
> > somewhere that is under control of the wider LLVM community.  I think
> > that's more in the interest of the LLVM community.
> This is exactly why we can't do it at LLVM. We can't give arbitrary people
> accounts.

Fair enough.  Can anyone else help out here?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list