That's consistent with trybots doing debug builds. Uninitialized var warnings only show up in optimized builds, nothing we can do there but turn on optimizations.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Andrew Scherkus<[email protected]> wrote: > On a related note, Frank (cc'd) ran into an issue where the mac try bots > have a less-strict compiler warning error than the build bots, which led to > a broken build once he checked in: http://codereview.chromium.org/155834 > Probably a simple config tweak somewhere, but interesting nonetheless. > Andrew > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Paweł Hajdan Jr. >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> One thing that would help us keep the tree more green is avoiding compile >>> failures. A compile failure is very bad, because without binaries the tests >>> can't run, and then we have to wait for all of them to run, which may reveal >>> additional failures etc. >>> I'm actually surprised by some failures on buildbot, but at least one >>> thing was not surprising for me: Windows Release compile failures when the >>> Debug compiles fine (because we don't have Release trybot). >> >> How often does something run in Windows when compiled with the release >> configuration but not the debug? I've definitely seen it, but I'm not sure >> it's terribly common. My guess is that there are other causes of the build >> breaking that should be addressed first. Are there any stats on this? >> My gut feeling is that many of the build breaks are for things that never >> passed on a try bot. For example, WebKit gardening patches almost never >> work on the try bots so we just ignore them. I think working on stuff like >> this will bear more fruit. >> Not to mention that each bot costs a lot in terms of the machine, >> power, maintenance time, etc. >> >>> >>> What do you think? Do you have any ideas how we could avoid more compile >>> failures, even if they are not possible to apply now due to lack of >>> resources? (for example adding trybots, which seems to not happen soon). >>> I was also thinking about allowing simple check-ins when the tree is >>> "waiting for cycle" state (when the sheriff wants to verify that bots cycle >>> green after a lot of redness). The status would say ("Tree closed, waiting >>> for cycle; ask sheriff to commit a simple change"), or maybe some >>> abbreviation for that. It would help people getting code in, and the sheriff >>> could require really a lot from that change (like full green trybot pass >>> etc). What do you think about that (especially sheriffs)? >> >> I think you can always ask the sheriffs if you can put something small in. >> I don't see the point of making any such message policy or a convention. >> That said, unless it doesn't compile or is REALLY obviously OK, I don't >> think it's a good idea. >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
