murdock: also compile with LLVM/clang#9398
Conversation
|
Requested review by @kaspar030 since it is his code I'm fiddling around with and by @gebart since IIRC he introduced the |
|
Seems to work now + Murdock already picked out some errors ;-) |
| echo "gnu llvm" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "gnu" | ||
| fi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this construct could be replaced with some BOARD=$board make info-toolchains-supported target? This way also the ARM platforms will be build with LLVM.
Except for one error in |
Funny one, this seems to come from |
|
I think the best way is just to ignore the Wtautological-pointer-compare warning for that line. Use something in utlist.h like the example in the clang manual #pragma clang diagnostic push
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wtautological-pointer-compare"
Blah
#pragma clang diagnostic pop |
|
I would really like to have llvm for native and llvm for at least few reference boards. |
|
@cladmi any idea how to achieve this based on the changes I already provided (keeping #9398 (comment) in mind)? |
|
@miri64 I did not really review for the moment. |
|
@miri64 I would say it depends, on what is wanted, test all possible boards or just some. If it is focusing first only on CI where some boards are selected for testing, adding other names at the place where you put If it is meant to be global, the |
Ok, then considering these three statements and with the urge to keep it simple for now, I would then check platform is native or a selection of a few other ARM-based boards in the hard-coded manner I applied for now and we later on select to provide a make target. |
(to my knowledge non of our other architectures have llvm-support at the moment) |
|
I added |
|
It looks like murdock cannot generated the aggregated report with this added parameter. From guessing and if I understand correctly I would imagine that adding |
|
Let's try that ;-) |
Nope, with that it doesn't show any build results anymore ;-) |
.murdock
Outdated
| local board=$1 | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO provide make target in similar fashion as the info-boards-supported one | ||
| for b in native samr21-xpro nucleo-f401re |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer to have this list in a global variable outside of the function to not have this "magic" list in the function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, similar to TEST_BOARDS_AVAILABLE
|
@kaspar030 do you have any idea how to fix the output ? |
.murdock
Outdated
| local board=$1 | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO provide make target in similar fashion as the info-boards-supported one | ||
| for b in native samr21-xpro nucleo-f401re |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please re-use the is_in_list function.
I'll have a look. |
|
Rebased |
237dfbe to
1394027
Compare
|
I talked about this PR with @cladmi over lunch and we decided to remove the failing architectures from the build list for add them in follow-ups, so we can finally proceed with this PR. |
0754011 to
7edeabe
Compare
|
Done |
d739fa8 to
42c5b00
Compare
|
Note to self: old state of |
|
@kaspar030 can you have another look? |
.murdock
Outdated
| RUN_TESTS=${RUN_TESTS:-${NIGHTLY}} | ||
|
|
||
| DWQ_ENV="-E BOARDS -E APPS -E NIGHTLY -E RUN_TESTS" | ||
| DWQ_ENV="-E BOARDS -E APPS -E NIGHTLY -E RUN_TESTS -E TOOLCHAIN" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cladmi and I weren't really sure if this is required
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed this change, so let's see how murdock might react.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to work regardless :-)
cladmi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good for me. You can squash.
There are two major reasons for this: 1. clang picks up different errors sometimes than GCC. 2. OSX support is hardened as it is usually the toolchain used there.
|
Squashed |
83013d9 to
9160b9c
Compare
|
@kaspar030 do you have any remarks left before merging ? |
|
I'm happy here. Good job guys! |
Contribution description
This is just an RFC and just a sketch at the moment, as I don't know how good this idea is (may slow down Murdock builds, but so would any new board) or if what I'm doing here is even correct.
But there are two major reasons for this:
Issues/PRs references
None (but idea sparked by #8646 (comment))