[llvm-dev] [RFC] RISC-V backend
Sean Ogden via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Aug 18 07:33:04 PDT 2016
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:21 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 18 August 2016 at 14:32, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote:
> > Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick
> > look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like
> > early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say
> > check-all should be be enough initially.
> They normally don't. But your target won't be tested by any other
> buildbot unless it's built by default, which only happens when it's
> made official.
> So, either you have some local validation (buildbot, weekly build +
> check-all, doesn't matter), with your target built in, or you won't
> know when your tests regress.
> > I'm sure that we (i.e.
> > lowRISC CIC) can support an additional buildbot when appropriate. Is
> > there any recommendation on minimum specification?
> If you have a server which can do some LLVM builds (can be any arch),
> then you just create a buildslave and add
> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=RISCV to the CMake options, running check-all.
> This doesn't need to be public, but you don't want to find test
> failures only when we move your target to official, then it breaks
> *all* buildbots, etc.
> > At what point do
> > you think providing an extra buildbot would become a priority? If any
> > additional value can be provided by doing so I'd definitely like to
> > have a buildbot before RISC-V becomes an 'official' rather than
> > 'experimental' arch.
> Official arches should have at least some testing. Many official
> arches test on other bots (like BPF and Lanai building on x86_64 bots)
> and this could be the case of RISCV.
> Of course, more bots / configurations are always welcome, but it will
> depend on the target and the community's engagement.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev