Hi,
We're less than 2 weeks away from the developer meeting, so I wanted to
give an update on the GitHub migration and what's (hopefully) going to
happen during the developer meeting.
Everyone who has added their information to the github-usernames.txt
file in SVN before today should have receive
Philip Reames via cfe-dev writes:
> A challenge we already have - as in, I've broken these tests and had to
> fix them - is that an end to end test which checks either IR or assembly
> ends up being extraordinarily fragile. Completely unrelated profitable
> transforms create small differences
Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev writes:
> I don't think these particular tests are the most controversial though, and
> it is really still fairly "focused" testing. I'm much more curious about
> larger end-to-end scope: for instance since you mention debug info and
> LLDB, what about a test that would ve
Hi lldb-dev.
Most of the tests build binaries to test with using Makefiles, and these
Makefiles use all sorts of unix commands
like sed and uname.And yet I see the build-bot is running `ninja-check
lldb` on windows.
I thought maybe if I installed MinGW that would have enough stuff in i
On 10/8/19 9:49 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote:
[ I am initially copying only a few lists since they seem like
the most impacted projects and I didn't want to spam all the mailing
lists. Please let me know if other lists should be included. ]
I submitted D68230 for review but this i
Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev writes:
>> I absolutely disagree about vectorization tests. We have seen
>> vectorization loss in clang even though related LLVM lit tests pass,
>> because something else in the clang pipeline changed that caused the
>> vectorizer to not do its job.
>
> Of course, and as
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43625
Bug ID: 43625
Summary: DataExtractor::GetCStr may access extra byte out of
bound when working with non-zero terminated string
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev writes:
>> I have a bit of concern about this sort of thing - worrying it'll lead to
>> people being less cautious about writing the more isolated tests.
>>
>
> I have the same concern. I really believe we need to be careful about
> testing at the right granularity to keep
