llvm dev - Aug 2016 - [cfe-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.

Hi All,

I recently learned that the RC binaries are built without assertions, the
same way the actual releases are built. This seems like a serious bug to
me. We should be looking for assertion failures during RC testing, not
hiding them.

So why are assertions disabled? I suggest we enable assertions in RC
binaries right away.

/Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160815/aac21c8a/attachment.html>

I think it's correct to test the same configuration that is shipped.  I can
see it being useful to *also* test asserts-enabled builds, but the RCs and final
release should be built identically IMO.
> On 2016-Aug-15, at 14:40, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I recently learned that the RC binaries are built without assertions, the
same way the actual releases are built. This seems like a serious bug to me. We
should be looking for assertion failures during RC testing, not hiding them.
> 
> So why are assertions disabled? I suggest we enable assertions in RC
binaries right away.
> 
> /Eric
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

I share the same basic opinion as Duncan, it makes me uncomfortable to not test
what is shipped.
Also users have to know that their compile-time will regress with RC compared to
release.
Maybe we could put both build online?

— 
Mehdi
> On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I think it's correct to test the same configuration that is shipped.  I
can see it being useful to *also* test asserts-enabled builds, but the RCs and
final release should be built identically IMO.
> 
>> On 2016-Aug-15, at 14:40, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I recently learned that the RC binaries are built without assertions,
the same way the actual releases are built. This seems like a serious bug to me.
We should be looking for assertion failures during RC testing, not hiding them.
>> 
>> So why are assertions disabled? I suggest we enable assertions in RC
binaries right away.
>> 
>> /Eric
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

I would argue that you should build the RC and the release the same 
way.  I've had to fix bugs were someone had an assert with a 
side-effect, and the code with asserts turned off didn't work.


On 8/15/2016 4:40 PM, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I recently learned that the RC binaries are built without assertions, 
> the same way the actual releases are built. This seems like a serious 
> bug to me. We should be looking for assertion failures during RC 
> testing, not hiding them.
>
> So why are assertions disabled? I suggest we enable assertions in RC 
> binaries right away.
>
> /Eric
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160815/b0dcce3c/attachment.html>

> I would argue that you should build the RC and the release the same way.
I've had to fix bugs were someone had an assert with a side-effect, and the
code with asserts turned off didn't work.

OK, so it's clearly important to provide and test against RC's in the
actual release configuration, especially since assertions can introduce
bugs on their own.
Arguably however assertions catch more bugs that they cause and if an
assertion is firing in a RC  that's a bug and we should want to know about
it.

Simply providing both configurations is a good start but I think we want
our releases to be assertion free and ensuring that should
be part of the releases process.

Those are my 2 cents at least.

/Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160815/bffe4b0b/attachment.html>

On 15 Aug 2016, at 22:40, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I recently learned that the RC binaries are built without assertions, the
same way the actual releases are built. This seems like a serious bug to me. We
should be looking for assertion failures during RC testing, not hiding them.
> 
> So why are assertions disabled? I suggest we enable assertions in RC
binaries right away.
Release Candidates are candidates for becoming the release.  They should be
builds that could simply be renamed to the release (perhaps with changes to the
version string, but nothing else).  Builds that have additional testing code
enabled are called betas.

David