W dniu pon, 02.10.2017 o godzinie 13∶33 -0700, użytkownik George Karpenkov napisał: > > On Oct 2, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Michał Górny via Phabricator > > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > mgorny added a comment. > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38444#886138, @george.karpenkov wrote: > > > > > > breaking stand-alone builds as a result > > > > > > That's a strong statement. Could you clarify? We have a lot of buildbots > > > performing standalone builds, and they are still green. > > > > > > I didn't know anyone actually added bots doing that. Are you sure we're > > talking about the same meaning of 'stand-alone'? Stand-alone == out of > > LLVM, against installed copy of LLVM. > > Yes. > You are right though that bots I was referring to do not run unit tests. > > > > > ninja -v -j16 -l0 check-all > > ninja: error: > > '/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/compiler-rt-sanitizers-9999/work/compiler-rt-sanitizers-9999/lib/asan/tests/gtest', > > needed by 'lib/asan/tests/dynamic/Asan-i386-calls-Dynamic-Test', missing > > and no known rule to make it > > > > It's as broken as it could be since it depends on target that does not > > exist. > > Right, by “works” I’ve meant that “it compiles”, not that “unit tests pass”. > My understanding is that running unit tests never meant to work, > as a freshly built clang is usually needed, and in standalone mode it is not > available. > I could be wrong though, in that case I do not know.
Yes, it requires some extra work to prepare a local clang copy that works correctly but it's certainly doable. > > Does everything magically work with this dummy target? Yes, the tests work as well as they used to before the refactor (there are a few failures but those are unrelated to the change in question). -- Best regards, Michał Górny _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
