[llvm-dev] dexter failures in cross-project-tests
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 27 13:56:43 PDT 2021
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:13 AM <orlando.hyams at sony.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
> > I'm trying to add some test coverage to cross-project-tests (related to
> the simplified template names work), and figured I'd start by making sure
> everything passes. I fixed some pretty printer issues
> (a36032345ed823414fcee0f9aed43628f4320001 - though that makes me wonder: is
> any buildbot running these tests, because they look like they've been
> failing for a while?) and then some dexter issues.
> Apple's lldb bot (
> https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake) runs the
> cross-project-tests. Looking at it now though, it looks like the job status
> isn't affected by these tests if they fail, a bunch of the dexter
> feature_tests appear to contain "UNSUPPORTED: system-darwin", plus -
> picking a "passing" build (
> https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/37155) - a load
> of dexter tests fail due to environment issues. All in all I'd say that
> doesn't really count, and I'm not aware of any other bots running these
Given Sony contributed dexter and these tests - do you folks have any
interest/resources invested in keeping these tests green? If not, maybe
they should be removed? You can keep them to run when you want, but without
any buildbots running them they don't seem sufficiently valued?
> > Anyone know what these dexter failures are about? The first one doesn't
> even seem to have the command line arguments right, which seems
> concerning/like something's quite broken. The second one gives not much
> meaningful/actionable output - and I tried running dexter directly with
> --verbose and seeing what it was doing (it didn't print much, but said it
> couldn't print the value of a local variable when it was passed to
> printf?), tried building the binary with the cflags that are passed to
> dexter and the binary ran correctly/was debuggable/I could print the value
> of the variable - seems like dexter could be more informative both while
> running under lit/the default configuration, and otherwise?
> Looks like the first test fails because of changes in D109833 - I've put a
> fix up here D112624.
> I'm not sure about the second failure without digging in deeper. One of
> us (cc Tom, Jeremy) can possibly take a look on or after Friday - we could
> XFAIL it until we get the chance?
Sure, whatever works for you - seems important to not have standing
failures like this one way or another.
> N.B. Stephen is away at the moment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev