[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D137759: [libc++] Add a libc++ CI pipeline specific to Clang changes

Thu Nov 10 12:14:20 PST 2022

ldionne marked an inline comment as done.
ldionne added a subscriber: mizvekov.
ldionne added a comment.

In D137759#3919733 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137759#3919733>, @erichkeane wrote:

> Thank you for doing this!  I have no way of reviewing these, but I'm hopeful someone more knowledgeable will be able to.

Yeah no problem, this was mostly for awareness because we talked about it.

================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/ci/buildkite-pipeline-clang.yml:17
+env:
+    LLVM_HEAD_VERSION: "16"
+steps:
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do we have/need something to keep this value from drifting away from the trunk version?
We do this manually every release when we bump the base compiler version we're using. This is a deliberate act and I think it's fine. I do agree it's a bit annoying to duplicate this here and in the other libc++ CI configuration.

================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/ci/buildkite-pipeline-clang.yml:41
+
+  - label: "Bootstrapping build / C++11"
+    command: "libcxx/utils/ci/run-buildbot bootstrapping-build"
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Please excuse my utter ignorance of buildkite, but... this looks identical to the previous step with the only change being to the label (same for the rest of the entries). How does the CI know which version to test against? Does it pull that out of the label automatically or something?
The answer is that all the jobs do the same thing as of this version of the patch. I just wanted to get something out real quick, I was sitting in EWG and wanted to make sure I didn't forget my conversation with @erichkeane.

Actually, let's discuss which jobs you folks want. What configurations do you want to test? I would suggest:

- A few standard modes -- what would make the most sense for clang?
- Modules enabled

That's probably enough, but I'd like to know what you and @erichkeane think about it. Oh and let's ping @mizvekov who has been needing these facilities too.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D137759/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D137759