Hey Chandler, FWIW - we hashed this idea out on this list not that long ago. What we resolved was that at this point we have 3 different build systems (cmake, configure/autoconf and Xcode), and we (meaning the lldb-dev group) at the time was okay with one build system user breaking another and we'd just deal with it.
You seem to be suggesting something different here, so I wanted to make sure you were aware we seemed to have reached consensus on an alternate approach before. -Todd On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Oct 1, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> This broke the CMake build and all the bots using it. Are you working on >> a fix? >> >> >> I didn’t receive any notification that the bots are broken - so I >> honestly can’t say I am working on a fix for a problem I am not aware of >> I am aware of it now that you mention it, of course, and yes we should >> fix it >> > > omg, wow, we don't even have a build bot covering cmake with LLDB. > > So, the deal is that LLVM has two supported build systems for *all* of its > projects: configure+make and cmake. You have to update cmake when adding a > new file. We have build bots for every project *except* LLDB using cmake to > help catch when this doesn't happen... I have no idea why we don't have a > build bot covering LLDB+CMake. That has to be fixed immediately. > > > We mostly use Xcode for builds at Apple, so it is really easy to remember > to add files to the .xcodeproj but not as easy to remember about CMake. Not > an excuse for why we (me) get to be bad at it, just an explanation > Bots would be nice, both as a reminder in scenarios as simple as this, and > generally as a more actionable description of the problem than “hey this > build mode that you don’t use is broken" > > So you understand why I think this is so serious -- even if I'm not > actively working on LLDB, if I just have it checked out into my LLVM tree, > the entire tree stops building if something LLDB breaks CMake. > > > At that point you could of course revert your local LLDB checkout if > you’re not actively working on it (as a stopgap measure at least), but yes > warn-then-revert is also a fair response mode. > > =[ Anyways, while it would be great of LLDB devs actually tested the CMake > build, the critical thing is to get a build bot covering it. > > I've fixed this for now in r218831 so I can make progress again > > > Thanks! And sorry for the breakage of course! > > I've also asked Zach, Reid, or David to work on setting up a build bot. > > > > Thanks, > *- Enrico* > 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits > > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected]
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
