[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] RC1 has been tagged

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev
>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64
>>>>
>>>> Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1.  Is there any
>>>> way to tell whether these are regressions vs new-to-3.8.0-but-failing?  The
>>>> MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++ errors were
>>>> not in 3.7.1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of the libc++ failures seem like non-issues and should be in 3.7.1.
>>> Did you change or upgrade your platform or libc version?  I'm not sure about
>>> the libc++abi error though.
>>
>>
>> I don't recall any changes to libc.  Attached is the testing log from
>> 3.7.1 rc2 (I don't have logs from -final handy).
>>
>> I can repeat a 3.7.1 release build on this system now.  I don't think the
>> results will change, though.
>>
>
> I discussed this more with Eric off-list and I think we've come to the
> conclusion that this was not a regression, it was my error.
>
> It's a bit tricky -- what should I expect for a new platform?  All failing
> tests are likely failing because they can't be/aren't yet supported?  It's
> tough to distinguish -- are they real bugs to be fixed, errors in the
> build/release process?

Ideally, all tests should pass on the platforms we build for. In your
case, it's not even very exotic, just x86_64 Linux. The LLVM and Clang
tests are pretty good in this regard, but various sanitizer and libc++
tests seem less stable. In practice, we've been releasing as long as
the failures don't look like regressions from previous releases.