[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r218808 - Add a new SBExecutionContext class that wraps an ExecutionContextRef. This class is a convenient way at the API level to package a target, process, thread and frame all together - or just a subset of those

[Todd Fiala]

Hey Chandler,

FWIW - we hashed this idea out on this list not that long ago.  What we
resolved was that at this point we have 3 different build systems (cmake,
configure/autoconf and Xcode), and we (meaning the lldb-dev group) at the
time was okay with one build system user breaking another and we'd just
deal with it.

You seem to be suggesting something different here, so I wanted to make
sure you were aware we seemed to have reached consensus on an alternate
approach before.

-Todd

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This broke the CMake build and all the bots using it. Are you working on
>> a fix?
>>
>>
>> I didn’t receive any notification that the bots are broken - so I
>> honestly can’t say I am working on a fix for a problem I am not aware of
>> I am aware of it now that you mention it, of course, and yes we should
>> fix it
>>
>
> omg, wow, we don't even have a build bot covering cmake with LLDB.
>
> So, the deal is that LLVM has two supported build systems for *all* of its
> projects: configure+make and cmake. You have to update cmake when adding a
> new file. We have build bots for every project *except* LLDB using cmake to
> help catch when this doesn't happen... I have no idea why we don't have a
> build bot covering LLDB+CMake. That has to be fixed immediately.
>
>
> We mostly use Xcode for builds at Apple, so it is really easy to remember
> to add files to the .xcodeproj but not as easy to remember about CMake. Not
> an excuse for why we (me) get to be bad at it, just an explanation
> Bots would be nice, both as a reminder in scenarios as simple as this, and
> generally as a more actionable description of the problem than “hey this
> build mode that you don’t use is broken"
>
> So you understand why I think this is so serious -- even if I'm not
> actively working on LLDB, if I just have it checked out into my LLVM tree,
> the entire tree stops building if something LLDB breaks CMake.
>
>
> At that point you could of course revert your local LLDB checkout if
> you’re not actively working on it (as a stopgap measure at least), but yes
> warn-then-revert is also a fair response mode.
>
> =[ Anyways, while it would be great of LLDB devs actually tested the CMake
> build, the critical thing is to get a build bot covering it.
>
> I've fixed this for now in r218831 so I can make progress again
>
>
> Thanks! And sorry for the breakage of course!
>
> I've also asked Zach, Reid, or David to work on setting up a build bot.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> *- Enrico*
> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-commits mailing list
> lldb-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>
>


-- 
Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfiala at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20141001/6964bfc8/attachment.html>