On 29 July 2014 19:42, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > > > Certainly, that seems more productive than asking people to stop > > committing. > > To be fair, it is *very* rare for a test break in the lldb code (without > build bots being very effective at the moment) to be due to a change in llvm > or clang.
For what it's worth, the FreeBSD buildbot reports r214094 as good and r214138 as broadly broken. (I'm waiting on Galina to add LLDB to the "official" FreeBSD builder.) One problem we have in LLDB though is that there are a handful of intermittently failing tests, so a red buildbot isn't necessarily a sign of a bad commit. This has been improving over time, and I suspect once a decent set of fast LLDB buildbots exist there will be more motivation to fix the remaining cases. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
