On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brian Cain <brian.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev >>> <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64 >>>> >>>> Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1. Is there any >>>> way to tell whether these are regressions vs new-to-3.8.0-but-failing? The >>>> MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++ errors were >>>> not in 3.7.1. >>>> >>> >>> All of the libc++ failures seem like non-issues and should be in 3.7.1. >>> Did you change or upgrade your platform or libc version? I'm not sure about >>> the libc++abi error though. >> >> >> I don't recall any changes to libc. Attached is the testing log from >> 3.7.1 rc2 (I don't have logs from -final handy). >> >> I can repeat a 3.7.1 release build on this system now. I don't think the >> results will change, though. >> > > I discussed this more with Eric off-list and I think we've come to the > conclusion that this was not a regression, it was my error. > > It's a bit tricky -- what should I expect for a new platform? All failing > tests are likely failing because they can't be/aren't yet supported? It's > tough to distinguish -- are they real bugs to be fixed, errors in the > build/release process?
Ideally, all tests should pass on the platforms we build for. In your case, it's not even very exotic, just x86_64 Linux. The LLVM and Clang tests are pretty good in this regard, but various sanitizer and libc++ tests seem less stable. In practice, we've been releasing as long as the failures don't look like regressions from previous releases. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
