[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D118940: [libc++] Fix std::__debug_less in c++17.

Jordan Rupprecht via Phabricator via libcxx-commits libcxx-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 3 20:00:10 PST 2022


rupprecht added a comment.

In D118940#3295359 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118940#3295359>, @philnik wrote:

> In D118940#3295347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118940#3295347>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
>
>> The patch looks good to me now... but we //do// have a buildkite runner that runs in Debug mode, and it didn't catch the thing you originally mentioned.
>> Can someone explain why `libcxx/test/std/algorithms/alg.sorting/alg.min.max/min_init_list_comp.pass.cpp` does not detect the problem?  I paste it into Godbolt and it detects the problem: https://godbolt.org/z/eKvcvbb7d yet the "Debug mode" buildkite job isn't failing.
>>
>> ...Ooh. It's because the "Debug mode" buildkite job uses only C++20 or C++2b, isn't it? The combinatorial explosion of config options strikes again. :(  @ldionne @philnik any thoughts on how to improve our CI coverage here?
>
> Yeah, exponential growth really sucks. A few things I thought of:
> (1) Have an infinite amount of money to throw at CI. That would mean we have 0 bugs, but it //might// not be feasible.
> (2) Ignore it and hope for the best

Also seems the most reasonable IMHO. Breakages seem pretty rare, I don't know if it's worth a bunch of resources for a once-a-year bug.

> (3) It would still be expensive, but we could see how expensive it is to only compile all the tests, and therefore effectively only testing `constexpr` with debug
> (4) Remove some configurations
>
> I guess option 3 would be the best option, but it might be too costly. So it's most likely going to be option 2.




Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D118940/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D118940



More information about the libcxx-commits mailing list