New testing workflow for Windows (was Re: [PATCH] [DOCS] How to Setup a Windows Builder)

[Mikael Lyngvig]

Alp, is there something I can do to help you out with finalizing this?  I
am very excited about this path through the maze of Unix-style components
needed to build LLVM on Windows.  I sort of hope that your method will
solve all known problems in the world and that Paradise will be a reality
the day after tomorrow as a result of using your stuff :-)

If necessary, I can take over the job of maintaining your patches when a
new version of BusyBox hits the street (which rarely, it seems).


Regards,
Mikael


2013/11/13 Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com>

>
> On 13/11/2013 01:06, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>
>  +**Notice:** If you do not plan to run the test suite, or sshd server,
> you don't
> +need Cygwin. You can build LLVM + Clang with only Subversion, MingwNN,
> and CMake.
>
>  I feel like the way you are handling these notices is backwards.
>
>
> This is all very complicated and difficult to document!
>
> I'd like to share an alternative..
>
> At Nuanti we have a setup that can run the full test suite natively on
> Windows using only the native Microsoft toolchain and a special BusyBox
> binary, so we don't even install MingW or Cygwin on Windows development
> systems.
>
> This has a number of benefits:
>
>    - Full test coverage. Our BusyBox is patched to be compatible with
>    Unix so we get to run tests that would usually fail due to REQURES/XFAIL
>    mingw/shell/shell-preserves-root.
>    - No need for Administrator access. There is nothing to install, no
>    GNU this or that, just a fresh SVN/git checkout from llvm.org.
>    - Easy to set up. Just drop the single binary in your PATH or lit
>    folder.
>     - Escaping and /dev/null hacks for Windows in lit are no longer
>    needed.
>    - Full in-process execution. Forking is slow on Windows, but with our
>    approach a full test suite run is reduced close to native timings
>    comparable to other platforms.
>
> I was planning to upstream this work later in the 3.5 cycle but looking at
> how painful the process is at present, and more so the effort to document
> it, I feel now like it might be worth pushing ahead earlier.
>
> The patch to lit itself is very small / low-impact and most of the work is
> in BusyBox itself.
>
> I can get this work Open Sourced along with a build of the drop-in
> llvm-busybox.exe later today if it sounds desirable.
>
> Certainly it'd reduce much of this document to just "Copy llvm-busybox.exe
> into your PATH"
>
> How does this sound?
>
> If you like the idea, let me know soon as today's the best time for me to
> pull this all together and post the lit side of the work for review.
>
> Regards,
> Alp.
>
> -- http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131114/19733930/attachment.html>