On 1/21/21 11:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:08:29AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 10/01/2021 17.27, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> Split the current GCC build-tci job in 2, and use Clang >>> compiler in the new job. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> RFC in case someone have better idea to optimize can respin this patch. >>> >>> .gitlab-ci.yml | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> I'm not quite sure whether we should go down this road ... if we wanted to >> have full test coverage for clang, we'd need to duplicate *all* jobs to run >> them once with gcc and once with clang. And that would be just overkill. >> >> I think we already catch most clang-related problems with the clang jobs >> that we already have in our CI, so problems like the ones that you've tried >> to address here should be very, very rare. So I'd rather vote for not >> splitting the job here. > > We can't possibly cope with the fully expanded matrix of what are > theoretically possible combinations. Thus I think we should be guided > by what is expected real world usage by platforms we target. > > Essentially for any given distro we're testing on, our primary focus > should be to use the toolchain that distro will build QEMU with. > > IOW, for Windows and Linux distros our primary focus should be GCC, > while for macOS, and *BSD, our focus should be CLang.
Sounds good. Do we need a TCI job on macOS then? Thanks, Phil.
