jdenny added a comment. In D59712#1472358 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712#1472358>, @hfinkel wrote:
> > I've never tried running the other tests you mention, for any patch. I > > thought people normally left those to the bots. Should this patch be > > handled differently? > > We have a lot of people actively working off of trunk, and we try very hard > to keep trunk clean. The bots are a second line of defense, not the primary > checkers. In any case, this comes down to professional judgement. It is not > uncommon to ask for a patch author to check self hosting and a test suite run > before committing - specifically, those patches that might affect > correctness, or introduce other subtle problems, and for which running the > compiler over a bunch of C/C++ code might uncover a problem. Thanks for explaining. It's my first time receiving these particular requests (probably because of what parts of LLVM I normally edit), so I wasn't sure I understood. For self-hosting, is it best to build again with CMAKE_C_COMPILER and CMAKE_CXX_COMPILE pointing into the previous build, or is there a better approach? > Also, is this review now missing some files? I see here only updates to > APSInt.h (only adding functions), APSIntTest.cpp, and a bunch of tests. > Nothing that would cause changes to the tests, however (maybe I'm just > missing something). All looks fine to me. The APSInt.h changes are the reason for all the test changes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59712 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
