On Oct 11, 2008, at 11:06 AM, OvermindDL1 wrote:> I should apologize. I have been trying to keep from attacking the > current process that llvm uses for testing (although I do still agree > that the current testing framework is more for testing llvm-gcc and > not llvm), but I have not quite been so successful.Ideas and feedback are useful. However, one systematic problem that the LLVM community has is that most of the regular contributors are on unix systems. As you probably know, much open source software works by having people 'scratch their itch'. You (and many other people on windows) are very itchy about this, but you're not producing code. If you have patches to start making specific progress towards your goal, they would be really welcome. Until then, we'll all admit that LLVM could work a lot better on windows, and follow it up with "patches welcome". That said, I am really thrilled about the recent progress towards cmake'ifying llvm, and we do have some very helpful developers on windows (thank you!). There are just a few very specific people who are very willing to complain about lack of feature x, but are apparently unwilling to help make it a reality. -Chris
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> Ideas and feedback are useful. However, one systematic problem that > the LLVM community has is that most of the regular contributors are on > unix systems. As you probably know, much open source software works > by having people 'scratch their itch'. You (and many other people on > windows) are very itchy about this, but you're not producing code.The last good 2 or 3 times for various open-source projects I have made code for ended up not using it for similar reasons to "not enough windows developers". Nowadays I have very little time to spare. My method would work equally well for testing everywhere, not just on any one system, and I can help set it up, but would need help in actually creating the tests as I have not used llvm in depth enough to know how it is supposed to act and so forth, but I can help setup a testing framework if people would actually use it.
On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:05 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: >> Ideas and feedback are useful. However, one systematic problem that >> the LLVM community has is that most of the regular contributors are >> on >> unix systems. As you probably know, much open source software works >> by having people 'scratch their itch'. You (and many other people on >> windows) are very itchy about this, but you're not producing code. > > The last good 2 or 3 times for various open-source projects I have > made code for ended up not using it for similar reasons to "not enough > windows developers". Nowadays I have very little time to spare. My > method would work equally well for testing everywhere, not just on any > one system, and I can help set it up, but would need help in actually > creating the tests as I have not used llvm in depth enough to know how > it is supposed to act and so forth, but I can help setup a testing > framework if people would actually use it.If you were interested in working on this project, it seems that the place to start is not by adding new crazy sorts of API tests for LLVM. It would be a better use of your time to take what we already have and make it work (with one of your proposals) on windows. When the infrastructure is set up, others could add tests in areas that they are knowledgeable about. -Chris