This has been in the works long enough to get plans together. If the current state of a bot suggests that manual validation is required then that’s what I’d recommend. That’s the unfortunate current state of affairs with the Green Dragon bots, for example.
Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com <mailto:k8st...@apple.com> Xcode Low Level Tools > On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 3 September 2016 at 00:30, Kate Stone via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> As a reminder, any pending commits you might have planned for LLDB this >> weekend must not break any of the bots we’re using to validate the health of >> the source tree. > > Given the current non-functional state of the bots, what is the plan > for proceeding with the formatting change? For FreeBSD the bot was > building lldb but not running the tests and I was planning to manually > validate the tests. > > For reference at r280675 on my FreeBSD desktop there are a few tests > that report errors (the libstdcpp ones, as FreeBSD 10 and later use > libc++), two that abort with an assertion ("Breakpoint update > failed!"), and three that sometimes time out (test_asm_int_3, > test_iter_registers_dwarf, test_with_dsym_and_python_api_dwarf).
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
