On 1/21/21 12:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:18:18PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> 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? > > TCI is only relevant if there is no native TCG host impl. > > macOS only targets aarch64 and x86_64, both of which have TCG, so there > is no reason to use TCI on macOS AFAICT
Yes, fine by me, but Wataru Ashihara reported the bug... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
