All good to hear. Let me know when we have hardware and I will get them build bots a-running :-)
-Todd On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandl...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > >> I generally sync llvm/clang in the AM, locked, and work with that >> throughout the day. If I kept up with TOT on all, all day long, I'm pretty >> sure my work machine, big as it is, would be building all day long ;-) >> > > This certainly isn't true for LLVM, Clang, and LLD themselves. With > cmake+ninja, it is not at all burdensome. I'm on the extreme end and will > routinely update over 40 or 50 times a day. > > >> The only time this has bitten me is when something LLDB depends on >> changes. Then I fix that or synch to the fix requirement that somebody else >> made. >> >> Are you suggesting something different? >> > > I'm suggesting a) *always* sync in or order to "fix" so that it is easy to > make cross-cutting changes without people wasting time inventing a > compatible way of doing it, and b) to including syncing every repo as the > first step of any "i have tests failing in a clean build?" sanity check. > Certainly, that seems more productive than asking people to stop committing. > > In LLVM land we have build bots that make sure that if anyone breaks > tests, the patch is reverted. Really, really fast. As a consequence, there > is never a need to "stop committing". I think that's a much healthier plan > especially with increasingly distributed contributors to LLDB. > > Just my 2 cents though. As I said, I'm just lurking here. =D > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfi...@google.com | 650-943-3180
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
