On 7 February 2018 at 14:20, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > As someone who gave up on trying to set up a bot due to flakiness, I have a > different experience.
I did not say it was easy to get to the present point, and I am certain that the situation is much harder on windows. But I believe this is due to reasons not related to the test runner (such various posixism spread out over the codebase and the fact that windows uses a completely different (i.e. lest tested) code path for debugging). FWIW, we also have a windows bot running remote tests targetting android. It's not as stable as the one hosted on linux, but most of the issues I've seen there also do not point towards dotest. > Rust is based on llvm so we have the tools necessary for that. The rest are > still maybe and someday so we can cross that bridge when (if) we come to it I don't know enough about Rust to say whether that is true. If it uses llvm as a backend then I guess we could check-in some rust-generated IR to serve as a test case (but we still figure out what exactly to do with it). However, I would assert that even for C family languages a more low-level approach than "$CC -g" for generating debug info would be useful. People generally will not have their compiler and debugger versions in sync, so we need tests that check we handle debug info produced by older versions of clang (or gcc for that matter). And then, there are the tests to make sure we handle "almost valid" debug info gracefully... _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev