Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev
2016-Aug-15 22:33 UTC
[llvm-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.
> 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>
Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
2016-Aug-15 22:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.
AFAIK there are no public bots for the release branches; it's just Hans or Tom, and their cadre of release elves, doing everything manually (?). It's unlikely to be worthwhile to replicate the entire bot farm to watch release branches with their relatively tiny amount of activity and limited lifespan, but it might be worth having a representative set that could be pointed to each successive release branch as they occur. We never (intend to) have more than one going at a time, IIUC, so relatively few bots would be needed. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 3:34 PM To: Craig, Ben Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.> 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/20160815/6320416b/attachment.html>
Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev
2016-Aug-16 08:03 UTC
[llvm-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.
On 16 Aug 2016, at 00:33, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > > 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.FWIW, I always test rc1, rc2 and so on with assertions on. Only for the "final" rc, I turn them off. -Dimitry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160816/a7f70bc2/attachment.sig>
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-Aug-16 08:07 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] LLVM 3.9 RC binaries should NOT disable assertions.
On 15 August 2016 at 23:57, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> AFAIK there are no public bots for the release branches; it's just Hans or > Tom, and their cadre of release elves, doing everything manually (?).Yup.> It's unlikely to be worthwhile to replicate the entire bot farm to watch release > branches with their relatively tiny amount of activity and limited lifespan, > but it might be worth having a representative set that could be pointed to > each successive release branch as they occur. We never (intend to) have > more than one going at a time, IIUC, so relatively few bots would be needed.I, unfortunately, agree with both sides. I think we should test what we release and also agree we should test with assertions. Buildbots won't scale, and if we only do a limited set, they might end up being irrelevant and time wasting. Unless we make the whole process done by bots (which was discussed in the past as is an interesting idea), but that's hardly ever coming to light in the next few months. I don't have a better solution than to put both binaries up for the RCs, but that won't fix, because people will invariably pick one instead of the other. I don't even know what's the real value of the release candidate binaries, as it seems not many people try them out via download, instead of building their own, which would make this discussion moot. cheers, --renato