<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There are some already, I have been caught out by that before on compiler changes; maybe one could have LLD added to their list of projects.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--paulr<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Smith<br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev; joelkevinjones@gmail.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] [LLD] Lack of REQUIRES causing test failures when not building with x86 support<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In order to catch a missing "REQUIRES: x86", it might be a good idea to set up a build bot without the x86 support.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:53 AM Peter Smith via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Joel,<br>
<br>
I don't think that there is a cunning plan with REQUIRES. I seem to<br>
remember that there was some debate over the testing strategy and<br>
platforms, but unfortunately I can't quickly find a link to it. In<br>
summary:<br>
- Much of the functionality of LLD is target independent, for example<br>
linker script support.<br>
- To write a test needs us to pick a target for these types of test<br>
and X86 was chosen as this was the most likely target to be compiled<br>
into build machines, for example the Arm and AArch64 buildbots include<br>
the X86 backend.<br>
<br>
I think that the missing 117 "REQUIRES" are an oversight, or<br>
historical artefact, and I think patches would be welcome to add them<br>
back in; a bot that doesn't build in the X86 backend is probably<br>
needed to keep this maintained as it is easy to forget the REQUIRES.<br>
However I think that if the goal is to test the majority of the<br>
functionality of LLD it would be wise to compile in support for X86 as<br>
much of the generic functionality will go untested.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
On 4 June 2018 at 15:49, Joel Jones via llvm-dev<br>
<<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> If I build lld without x86 support (i.e. with "cmake -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=AArch64”) there are 117 tests that fail “make check-lld”. Upon examination, all are x86 related.<br>
><br>
> There are multiple (884) tests that have “REQUIRES:.*x86” in the tests directory. Was there a cunning plan regarding the use of REQUIRES that I couldn’t discern?<br>
><br>
> It seems that either 117 “REQUIRES” need to be added or 884 need to be removed.<br>
><br>
> Joel Jones<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>