llvm dev - May 2021 - Help with patch D101639

Hi everyone,
this is the first patch I've submitted to LLVM, and I'm not well
acquainted with the automated scripts that are run as pre-merge tests.

I've been able to solve the formatting related issues, but there are a
couple of tests that I'm not sure what to do about: clang-tidy warns
about missing header files, likely caused by the OCaml headers not being
present on the machine running pre-tests, and a suggested fix in case of
"unhelpful" clang-tidy warnings is to put the file into the
ignorelist.
I'm not sure this is the right course of action, because obviously this
file has worked before without having to ignore it.

Also, the 'lit.lit::test-output-micro.py' completely stumps me, it
doesn't seem to be related to what I'm patching and I can't really
understand its result.

This is the link to phabricator for reference:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101639

Thanks and best regards,
Francesco

Hi Francesco,

clang-tidy will run over all files in a patch, even if not supported in
the build system, so errors about missing header files can often be
ignored.

As for the failing lit test, the are dependent on trunk having no build
failures, which unfortunately isn't always the case. If the failing
test doesn't appear to be related to the code you are working on in any
way, it can (usually) be ignored.

~Nathan

On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 09:42 +0200, Francesco Bertolaccini via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> this is the first patch I've submitted to LLVM, and I'm not well
> acquainted with the automated scripts that are run as pre-merge
> tests.
> 
> I've been able to solve the formatting related issues, but there are
> a
> couple of tests that I'm not sure what to do about: clang-tidy warns
> about missing header files, likely caused by the OCaml headers not
> being
> present on the machine running pre-tests, and a suggested fix in case
> of
> "unhelpful" clang-tidy warnings is to put the file into the
> ignorelist.
> I'm not sure this is the right course of action, because obviously
> this
> file has worked before without having to ignore it.
> 
> Also, the 'lit.lit::test-output-micro.py' completely stumps me, it
> doesn't seem to be related to what I'm patching and I can't
really
> understand its result.
> 
> This is the link to phabricator for reference:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D101639
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Francesco
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev