[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk

[Tanya Lattner]

On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:55 PM, David Greene wrote:

> On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:04, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>> 2009/7/15 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
>>> I'm not too keen about seeing buildbots play with trunk ;)
>>>
>>> How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work?
>>> Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots  
>>> pass.
>>
>> I don't know anything about svn performance. Would this negatively
>> impact llvm.org, which is already pretty strained?
>
> Tags are cheap.
>

Sure, but if you have thousands of them, they become somewhat  
meaningless. How often are you thinking about tagging? If its every  
commit, that seems excessive.

>> If this is reasonable I think I can update my buildbots to do this
>> fairly easily. The global tag is difficult since it requires
>> coordination, but individual tags would be easy. It would be nice to
>> get the mails from them filtered out, otherwise it will make the
>> commit list very noisy.
>
> Thanks to Törok, I think I have the validator buildbot working.  The  
> recipe
> I have does this:
>
> * Build llvm
> * Run make check on llvm
> * Build llvm-gcc, pointed to the just-built llvm
> * Install llvm-gcc in a temporary locationo
> * Build llvm again, pointing to the just-installed llvm-gcc
> * Run make check on llvm
> * Run llvm-test
>
> If all of these pass, the validation is considered to succeed.
>

How do you determine if llvm-test passes? You need some post  
processing to compare it to some known valid build (ie. a release).

-Tanya

> I can easily add make check on llvm-gcc if/when we support it.
>
> I'd like to take advantage of any tagging infrastructure you add.   
> It would
> be nice to auto-tag individual validation builds as working.  I  
> agree that
> global tagging can't be automated within the buildbot.  Perhaps a  
> daemon
> could listed to e-mails from the buildbots and tag when a particular
> revision passes all of the buildbot.  That'll come later, though.
>
> In the meantime, should I attempt to merge my recipe into your  
> buildbot config
> when you check it into the llvm repository?  I'd make separate  
> buildbot
> factories to run the two recipes (nightly and validation) but the  
> smae slave
> pool could be used for both.  Or should these remain as completely  
> separate
> buildbots?
>
> One long-term goal for me is to make validation even more target- 
> sensitive.
> So for example if we had a way to set default llvm and/or llvm-gcc  
> options
> to compile for specific implementations (Barcelona vs. Nehalem, for  
> example),
> we could more rigorously test the optimizer and code generator.  I  
> know that
> for us this would be a big win.  But AFAIK there's no way to set  
> default
> compiler flags like this right now.
>
>                              -Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090716/45edd181/attachment.html>