>From email thread: >> Should we have a buildbot set up to build this configuration? > I would appreciate having one, but I can't host it at the moment. > At some point I would like to host a baremetal buildbot (targeting either > QEMU, a raspberry pi, or some beagleboard), but I'm not quite ready for > that... we need to work out the details of remote testing in lit before that > is practical.
Keeping a buildbot going for this patch doesn't actually require baremetal (though that would be nice to have as well). @EricWF recently set up a buildbot. He might be willing to host it. >> Would it be possible to define noop implementations of all the things >> you've ifdef'd out so that we don't have to worry about that? It's possible >> that would make things more or a mess, but I'm not sure. > I think that nop-shims have an even higher potential for bit-rot than these > #ifdef's. > I originally attempted writing no-op shims for a few of them, but there were > several where it didn't seem possible, and others where the shims were pretty > hairy. Okay, I thought that might be the case. With those things accounted for, LGTM. http://reviews.llvm.org/D3969 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
