[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] gitlab-ci: Add a job building TCI with Clang

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] gitlab-ci: Add a job building TCI with Clang
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:18:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0

On 1/21/21 11:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:08:29AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 10/01/2021 17.27, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Split the current GCC build-tci job in 2, and use Clang
>>> compiler in the new job.
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
>>> ---
>>> RFC in case someone have better idea to optimize can respin this patch.
>>>   .gitlab-ci.yml | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> I'm not quite sure whether we should go down this road ... if we wanted to
>> have full test coverage for clang, we'd need to duplicate *all* jobs to run
>> them once with gcc and once with clang. And that would be just overkill.
>> I think we already catch most clang-related problems with the clang jobs
>> that we already have in our CI, so problems like the ones that you've tried
>> to address here should be very, very rare. So I'd rather vote for not
>> splitting the job here.
> We can't possibly cope with the fully expanded matrix of what are
> theoretically possible combinations. Thus I think we should be guided
> by what is expected real world usage by platforms we target.
> Essentially for any given distro we're testing on, our primary focus
> should be to use the toolchain that distro will build QEMU with.
> IOW, for Windows and Linux distros our primary focus should be GCC,
> while for macOS, and *BSD, our focus should be CLang.

Sounds good.

Do we need a TCI job on macOS then?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]