On 18 August 2016 at 00:08, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 17 August 2016 at 10:14, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev >> * Codegen >> * Compressed instruction set support (RVC) >> * Benchmarking and comparison to GCC RISC-V (and potentially other archs) > > What about buildbots? > > I'm assuming "check-all" would be enough for now, but you'll have to > have at least one buildbot that builds the back-end (which for now > will be experimental, and will need an additional CMake flag). > > But in the long run, you'll want to run the test-suite, even if on a > simulator, and who knows, maybe even self-host Clang in your target!Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say check-all should be be enough initially. I'm sure that we (i.e. lowRISC CIC) can support an additional buildbot when appropriate. Is there any recommendation on minimum specification? At what point do you think providing an extra buildbot would become a priority? If any additional value can be provided by doing so I'd definitely like to have a buildbot before RISC-V becomes an 'official' rather than 'experimental' arch. Best, Alex
On 18 August 2016 at 14:32, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote:> Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick > look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like > early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say > check-all should be be enough initially.They normally don't. But your target won't be tested by any other buildbot unless it's built by default, which only happens when it's made official. So, either you have some local validation (buildbot, weekly build + check-all, doesn't matter), with your target built in, or you won't know when your tests regress.> I'm sure that we (i.e. > lowRISC CIC) can support an additional buildbot when appropriate. Is > there any recommendation on minimum specification?If you have a server which can do some LLVM builds (can be any arch), then you just create a buildslave and add -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=RISCV to the CMake options, running check-all. This doesn't need to be public, but you don't want to find test failures only when we move your target to official, then it breaks *all* buildbots, etc.> At what point do > you think providing an extra buildbot would become a priority? If any > additional value can be provided by doing so I'd definitely like to > have a buildbot before RISC-V becomes an 'official' rather than > 'experimental' arch.Official arches should have at least some testing. Many official arches test on other bots (like BPF and Lanai building on x86_64 bots) and this could be the case of RISCV. Of course, more bots / configurations are always welcome, but it will depend on the target and the community's engagement. cheers, --renato
+1! On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:21 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 18 August 2016 at 14:32, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > > Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick > > look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like > > early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say > > check-all should be be enough initially. > > They normally don't. But your target won't be tested by any other > buildbot unless it's built by default, which only happens when it's > made official. > > So, either you have some local validation (buildbot, weekly build + > check-all, doesn't matter), with your target built in, or you won't > know when your tests regress. > > > > I'm sure that we (i.e. > > lowRISC CIC) can support an additional buildbot when appropriate. Is > > there any recommendation on minimum specification? > > If you have a server which can do some LLVM builds (can be any arch), > then you just create a buildslave and add > -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=RISCV to the CMake options, running check-all. > > This doesn't need to be public, but you don't want to find test > failures only when we move your target to official, then it breaks > *all* buildbots, etc. > > > > At what point do > > you think providing an extra buildbot would become a priority? If any > > additional value can be provided by doing so I'd definitely like to > > have a buildbot before RISC-V becomes an 'official' rather than > > 'experimental' arch. > > Official arches should have at least some testing. Many official > arches test on other bots (like BPF and Lanai building on x86_64 bots) > and this could be the case of RISCV. > > Of course, more bots / configurations are always welcome, but it will > depend on the target and the community's engagement. > > cheers, > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160818/ad749c4a/attachment-0001.html>
On 18 August 2016 at 15:21, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 18 August 2016 at 14:32, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: >> Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick >> look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like >> early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say >> check-all should be be enough initially. > > They normally don't. But your target won't be tested by any other > buildbot unless it's built by default, which only happens when it's > made official. > > So, either you have some local validation (buildbot, weekly build + > check-all, doesn't matter), with your target built in, or you won't > know when your tests regress.Obviously `./bin/llvm-lit -s -i ../test` is one of my most frequently executed commands, but we definitely want automation to pick up issues caused by changes elsewhere.>> I'm sure that we (i.e. >> lowRISC CIC) can support an additional buildbot when appropriate. Is >> there any recommendation on minimum specification? > > If you have a server which can do some LLVM builds (can be any arch), > then you just create a buildslave and add > -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=RISCV to the CMake options, running check-all. > > This doesn't need to be public, but you don't want to find test > failures only when we move your target to official, then it breaks > *all* buildbots, etc.Thanks, I didn't realise nobody was running a public buildbot already that built all experimental archs - though of course that makes sense. In that case I'll prioritise getting something set up. Best, Alex