mizvekov wrote: > I think it makes a lot of sense for lldb to have a precommit CI pipeline > which tests changes to lldb. I don't think we're at a point where it would > make sense to enable lldb precommit CI testing for changes to clang, though. > > For starters, the false positive rate from flaky lldb test failures is pretty > high:
I think we only need a subset of lldb tests for pure clang changes, and my experience is that those aren't as flaky. > But also, changes in Clang that break lldb do not necessarily mean that a PR > is not ready to land. There are conforming changes that can be made to Clang > which lldb needs to react to as a downstream consumer of Clang as a library > rather than a PR author needing to react to it. (e.g., adding a new AST node > to Clang or changing diagnostic wording/behavior). We should try to come up > with and document a policy about what the expectations are regarding Clang > and lldb interactions before we add lldb to Clang's precommit CI pipeline. Yeah clarifying this would be helpful. In my past experience, this is not the expectation lldb maintainers have. I have had clang patches reverted only because they broke lldb tests on pure diagnostics / type printing improvements. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94208 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
