Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: LLVM build strategy

[Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

On 12/8/24 4:45 PM, Sam James wrote:
>> I don't like the idea of spending hours building everything before I'm
>> even able to start running tests, just to learn that LLVM is broken
>> and there's no point in even starting to build the rest.
> 
> I don't follow this bit -- you need the new LLVM merged before you can
> build Clang's tests, right? And if any of it fails to build, it's not
> like we can commit the release or snapshot?
> 
> What am I missing on this bit?


I think the point here is that currently, one can build sys-devel/llvm
with tests enabled, and if it fails, there's no point in also building
sys-devel/clang. But with a monorepo build, you'd have to build llvm,
clang (and various others) first, and then launch tests for llvm and
clang together, only to get a test failure in the llvm tests that
indicates everything else is broken too. Depending on cmake test
ordering, you may also run half the clang tests before hitting the llvm
failures, even.

In theory this could be solved by building monorepo-llvm with
FEATURES=test USE="-clang" to start running tests, and then if that
passes, rebuild llvm again but this time with clang etc. enabled. Not
sure this is actually solving the stated objection...


-- 
Eli Schwartz

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]