I agree. In future I will provide the revision of the build as well as the date it was pulled and built. Do you have an opinion on using the TOT at all? Perhaps it might be more significant to use a released version?
Best, Eric On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Tobias Grosser <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/08/2014 03:59, Eric Fiselier wrote: > >> Author: ericwf >> Date: Thu Jul 31 20:59:09 2014 >> New Revision: 214474 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=214474&view=rev >> Log: >> Update linux test results file >> >> Modified: >> libcxx/trunk/www/results.Linux.html >> >> Modified: libcxx/trunk/www/results.Linux.html >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/www/ >> results.Linux.html?rev=214474&r1=214473&r2=214474&view=diff >> ============================================================ >> ================== >> --- libcxx/trunk/www/results.Linux.html (original) >> +++ libcxx/trunk/www/results.Linux.html Thu Jul 31 20:59:09 2014 >> @@ -6,28 +6,17 @@ >> <body> >> <pre> >> >> +This file was last updated 31/7/2014 >> + >> All failures in the libc++ test suite will be documented here. Last >> -run was with Clang (pre-3.2) on Debian unstable x86_64 with eglibc >> -2.13 and kernel 3.2.0-3-amd64. The ABI library used was libc++abi. >> +run was with Clang Tip-of-Tree on Ubuntu 14.04 x86_64 with eglibc >> > > Tip-of-Tree is not very precise. I wonder if it would make sense to give > the exact revision number for people who want to reproduce the results? > > Cheers, > Tobias >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
