[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk

[Dale Johannesen]

On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:48 PMPDT, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

> That depends on what you call a false positive. The public buildbot
> regularly fails because of mailing Frontend tests, and I have had
> continues failures of some DejaGNU tests for a long time on some
> builders. Its not a false positive per se, but one starts to ignore
> the failures because they aren't unexpected.

Yes.  Probably the only way this will work better is if we get the  
testsuite to 0 failures, everywhere, conditionalizing as necessary to  
get rid of expected failures.  Then regressions will be more visible.   
I doubt that will happen unless we freeze the tree for a while and get  
everybody to fix bugs, or disable tests, instead of doing new stuff  
(at least, that was the case for gcc).

> - Daniel
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Bill Wendling<isanbard at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Eli  
>> Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Bill Wendling<isanbard at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> The core problem, in my opinion, is that people *don't* pay  
>>>> attention
>>>> to the build bot failure messages that come along.
>>>
>>> That's largely because of the number of false positives.
>>>
>> There have been fewer and fewer of these in recent times.
>>
>> -bw
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev