[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk

David Greene dag at cray.com
Thu Jul 16 13:55:11 PDT 2009

On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:04, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> 2009/7/15 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
> > I'm not too keen about seeing buildbots play with trunk ;)
> >
> > How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work?
> > Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots pass.
> I don't know anything about svn performance. Would this negatively
> impact llvm.org, which is already pretty strained?

Tags are cheap.

> If this is reasonable I think I can update my buildbots to do this
> fairly easily. The global tag is difficult since it requires
> coordination, but individual tags would be easy. It would be nice to
> get the mails from them filtered out, otherwise it will make the
> commit list very noisy.

Thanks to Törok, I think I have the validator buildbot working.  The recipe
I have does this:

* Build llvm
* Run make check on llvm
* Build llvm-gcc, pointed to the just-built llvm
* Install llvm-gcc in a temporary locationo
* Build llvm again, pointing to the just-installed llvm-gcc
* Run make check on llvm
* Run llvm-test

If all of these pass, the validation is considered to succeed.

I can easily add make check on llvm-gcc if/when we support it.

I'd like to take advantage of any tagging infrastructure you add.  It would
be nice to auto-tag individual validation builds as working.  I agree that
global tagging can't be automated within the buildbot.  Perhaps a daemon
could listed to e-mails from the buildbots and tag when a particular
revision passes all of the buildbot.  That'll come later, though.

In the meantime, should I attempt to merge my recipe into your buildbot config
when you check it into the llvm repository?  I'd make separate buildbot 
factories to run the two recipes (nightly and validation) but the smae slave
pool could be used for both.  Or should these remain as completely separate

One long-term goal for me is to make validation even more target-sensitive.  
So for example if we had a way to set default llvm and/or llvm-gcc options
to compile for specific implementations (Barcelona vs. Nehalem, for example),
we could more rigorously test the optimizer and code generator.  I know that
for us this would be a big win.  But AFAIK there's no way to set default
compiler flags like this right now.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list