On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd like Kostya to comment. > > Green bots are no doubt better than red bots or no bots, but I'm not sure > what level of ARM support our team has committed to. > I'f we've broke something on a public bot we better fix it or roll it back (and then fix it) > > On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 1:43:10 PM Renato Golin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 23 February 2015 at 10:05, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Kostya, what's our policy re: ARM sanitizer bots failures? >> >> Timur, >> >> As far as ARM buildbots are concerned, any breakage is critical. ARM, >> like Intel, is a first-class architecture and we have to support it >> fully. Whatever the buildbots pass today, they should pass tomorrow. >> If we break that contract for one buildbot, we break for all of them, >> and that is not acceptable. >> >> Your commit broke our bots by exposing a flaw in the sanitizer on the >> ARM architecture. The correct way to deal with this is to revert the >> patch and contact the bot owner, in this case, me, to fix the issue. I >> can help you debug and even allow you into an ARM box at my house so >> that you can do your tests, but as soon as we start marking >> previously-passing tests as XFAIL or ignore broken bots, there will be >> no stopping, and the quality of the whole toolchain will diminish. >> >> At Linaro, we have people working on both the address and the thread >> sanitizers, and they can also work with you to fix the issue. >> >> >> > This is a second revert in a row. >> >> I haven't reverted yet, just contacted the author of the patch to fix >> it. If it's not possible to fix, or if other bugs start creeping in >> (like was the case with your patch), I will revert them to help fix >> the buildbot back to green. Another reason for reverting a patch that >> is breaking a bot, is time. If the author doesn't respond in a day >> after the initial breakage, we will revert the patch. That's standard >> practice across all LLVM components / architectures. >> >> This may sound harsh, but a lot can happen in a day. This particular >> failure is a clear demonstration of that, as it got introduced and >> Larisse couldn't know, since the bot was already red. >> >> >> > (see also r230019 where the failure happened after a trivial change) >> >> That trivial change has triggered a real bug in the sanitizer, and we >> need to get at the bottom of that. >> >> According to the LLVM Developer Policy, patches submitted must not >> regress on the make check or the test-suite on all supported >> platforms. ARM is a supported platform for both Compiler-RT and ASAN, >> so we should not regress. >> >> More importantly, you probably found a real bug in ASAN, and we should >> be discussing how to fix *that*, instead of what's the policy on >> reverting sanitizer changes because it fails on a platform that you're >> not familiar with. >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
