On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sand...@imgtec.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf >> Of Hans Wennborg >> Sent: 22 July 2015 17:42 >> To: Daniel Sanders >> Cc: llvmdev; cfe-dev; lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu; Ben Pope; Ed Maste; Sebastian >> Dreßler >> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [3.7 Release] RC1 has been tagged, Testing Phase I >> begins >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Daniel Sanders >> <daniel.sand...@imgtec.com> wrote: >> >> Ben reports that he didn't get a tarball even after the rpath fix and >> >> had to disable -o pipefail to get one. Still not sure what caused >> >> this. >> > >> > 'make check' failures can cause this. I had to revert r241599 to get a >> package. >> >> Oh, I'm silly. Some part of my brain assumed "make -k" would not just >> "keep going" but also ignore errors. That's not the case of course. >> >> I suppose we could disable -o pipefail for the test step. On the other >> hand, we should make these tests pass :-) Let me know what you think. > > Generally speaking, I agree that we should fix these tests although I do have > one failure in the mipsel-linux-gnu package which isn't fixable without > either replacing the machine or enabling atime on an NFS partition (there's > no local storage). In that particular case, I think it's fine to accept the > expected failure. It would be nice to automatically XFAIL that test on > noatime filesystems though. > > I think the release script shouldn't give up at the first sign of problems. > We're going to get the occasional failure during release testing and we > should always get a package to enable further testing beyond what the release > script does. The ideal would be to have the release script detect whether > there were failures and print something like 'Errors occurred, please check > the logs for details' to highlight the problem but otherwise behave as if > everything was fine. > > This is completely untested and may be bash/Linux specific but we could have > something like: > defer_fail() { > local exit_code > set +e > "$@" > exit_code=$? > set -e > if [ "$exit_code" != 0 ]; then > SOMETHING_FAILED=1 > fi > } > > set -e > set -o pipefail > command1 # The script will stop if command1 fails > command2 | command3 # The script will stop if either > command2/command3 fails > defer_fail command4 # The script will report an error later if > command4 fails but will proceed > defer_fail command5 | defer_fail command6 # The script will report an > error later if either command5/command6 fails but will proceed > > if [ "$SOMETHING_FAILED" = 1 ]; then > echo "Something failed, please check the logs" > fi
I uploaded a patch that does something like this: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11478 Let me know what you think. Thanks, Hans _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
