On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:05:43PM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
Hi,
On 1/21/21 7:08 AM, 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 agree with Thomas.
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 got only one clang job on GitLab CI...
build-clang:
<<: *native_build_job_definition
variables:
IMAGE: fedora
CONFIGURE_ARGS: --cc=clang --cxx=clang++
TARGETS: alpha-softmmu arm-softmmu m68k-softmmu mips64-softmmu
ppc-softmmu s390x-softmmu arm-linux-user
MAKE_CHECK_ARGS: check
... and others on Travis:
"Clang (user)"
"Clang (main-softmmu)"
"Clang (other-softmmu)"
I guess these three overlap partially with the build-clang job.
"[s390x] Clang (disable-tcg)"
Don't forget the Cirrus CI jobs for freebsd and macOS will
be using CLang too.
So I've some questions:
* Can we move those first three Travis jobs to Gitlab CI? (I can work on
that)
Yeah, if we move those three travis jobs they can replace the existing
build-clang job. We don't neccesssarily need to keep them as three
separate jobs - that split was just due to the Travis time limits.
If a different split works better on GitLab we can do that.