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

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

aaron.ballman added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/ci/buildkite-pipeline-clang.yml:41
+
+  - label: "Bootstrapping build / C++11"
+    command: "libcxx/utils/ci/run-buildbot bootstrapping-build"
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > ldionne wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Ah, okay, I wasn't stupid then, wahoo! :-D
> > 
> > In terms of what configurations to test, I think the important ones are:
> > 
> > 1) Modules
> > 2) Target OS differences (Windows vs Linux), especially where `sizeof(size_t)` or `sizeof(long)` differs
> > 3) C++latest
> > +++ ones past here are more questionable +++
> > 4) C++98? Alternatively: user-controlled standard version through some magic?
> > 5) Target hardware differences (ARM vs IA vs PPC)?
> > 6) (Someday, perhaps) Experimental constexpr interpreter vs current constexpr evaluator?
> > 
> > We might want to combine some of these options together as well, so you can do C++latest + modules + Windows and C++latest + no modules + Linux, but I don't know that we need to try for testing the full combinatorial matrix.
> Sounds good, we'll have modules, C++03 and C++2b for the time being. I am not sure how to set it up for Windows but we can add it later.
> 
> For other architectures, the problem is that our fast builders are all on Linux and using the same Docker image. Builders for other funky architectures are controlled by other folks and have less bandwidth, so I would not tackle that in this initial patch.
SGTM, I think it's totally fine to roll this out incrementally.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D137759