Em quinta-feira, 4 de maio de 2017, às 07:34:34 PDT, Sergio Martins escreveu: > On 2017-05-04 14:53, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 4 de maio de 2017, às 00:23:46 PDT, Heikki Halmet > > > > escreveu: > >> Clang 4: Do we really need this to be tested with Linux in CI? If yes, > >> then > >> which configuration it will be replaced? > > > > I don't think we need to. The macOS builds should be sufficient for > > almost > > everything intrinsic to Clang. Those of us who test it on Linux will > > submit > > fixes as needed. > > We've introduced bugs in the past that would have been caught > immediately by clang + Werror if it had been in the CI. > clang has warnings that gcc doesn't have. Apple Clang is based on older > clang (which one?), so doesn't have all the nice warnings.
I'm not doubting it has benefits. That's why I build with it on my machine. In fact, I build linux-clang more often than macx-clang or win32-msvc. But Heikki's message implies it's not in the CI, so we're not losing anything we had. We're just not adding something we've never had. > I don't know the cost of adding it to the CI, so I won't comment on the > cost/benefit relation. That's exactly the point. The question was: "what should it replace" and I don't think we can confidently say it should replace anything. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
