Hi Serge! Thanks for a lot of the answers here :)
> > The proposed infrastructure makes this process smoother and non intrusive > to the > llvm-project codebase: all development can be done in a separate git repo, > integration is controlled through cmake flags, and integration to > clang/opt/bugpoint is built-in. > > Sounds reasonably nice. > > That being said, perhaps it is worth it? But I think we need to call out > why we > > want it. I would also have expected something to llvm-dev for a change > of this > > magnitude. I didn't see anyone from the pass manager hierarchy on the > reviews > > and the final reviewer wasn't someone who contributes to these areas > typically. > > I've (obviously) mentioned this development on llvm-dev, see > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/135326.html > > Is there anything I should have done? Probably reaching llvm-dev before > commiting. Reaching the right reviewers has always been a challenge to me, > I had > hoped that the mail to llvm-dev would trigger some subscription :-) > Hrm. Probably finding some different reviewers, but I can't fault your attempts here. Usually you can look at the last few people to make substantial work in an area and loop them in via git log. :) > In addition, what's with the OSX failure? It's currently turned off and > was > > breaking the bots, but does it mean that you don't expect this machinery > to > > work on OSX? That seems like a severely limiting factor for the project. > > I've setup github actions to test many configurations before merging [0], > but missed one of > them. I'm currently working on fixing that part. > Nice! Glad for the work here. > > ; CHECK-EP-VECTORIZER-START-NEXT: Running pass: NoOpFunctionPass > > +; CHECK-EXT: Running pass: {{.*}}::Bye on foo > > > > Why is this running on every test of the pass manager? It should be an > example > > run in the examples directory and not on by default? Same for every > other PM > > test. This seems like a bug? > > It's not. When the examples are active and if the appropriate cmake flag > is set > (which is not the case by default), the pass is linked in statically, and > is run > in the default pipeline. The CHECK-EXT prefix is disabled otherwise. > That's one > of the configuration I did test :-) > > I really don't think this is ideal. The examples directory shouldn't affect tests being run or not or in what way. Can we back this part out and talk about it a bit more? I don't think we should need to do this to test the functionality. > > Thanks! > > Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify some obscure points, hope > it > helps ! > > It very much did. Thanks for explaining. -eric
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
