-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
ci
: Move FreeBSD/NetBSD module tests from x86_64-linux
to aarch64-linux
#24084
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ ninja install | |
stage3-release/bin/zig build test docs \ | ||
--maxrss 44918199637 \ | ||
-Dstatic-llvm \ | ||
-Dskip-non-native \ | ||
-Dtest-target-filter=aarch64-linux \ | ||
-Dtest-target-filter=freebsd \ | ||
-Dtest-target-filter=netbsd \ | ||
Comment on lines
+55
to
+57
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. the CI scripts are very intentionally not specifying what to include, but what to skip. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The behavior we want is to build all native targets + FreeBSD targets + NetBSD targets. We can't express that with just excludes. Or well, we can, but it's going to be a lot of excludes, and I'm not sure that'd be better than this? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To be honest, I would also say that In other words, you could essentially rephrase a single So, I struggle to buy that "the CI scripts are specifying what to skip, not what to include". There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Keep in mind also that if we do go the exclusion route for this script, we'd have to update it every time a new kind of target is added to the test matrix, e.g. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's the point. Everything is supposed to be tested by default, not testing things being explicit exceptions that are obviously noted. |
||
-Dtarget=native-native-musl \ | ||
--search-prefix "$PREFIX" \ | ||
--zig-lib-dir "$PWD/../lib" \ | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're starting to write a meta language inside the build options... let's not go down the path of having build options fundamentally change the meaning of other build options.
-Dskip-netbsd -Dskip-freebsd
would be the simplest approach.Also OK would be
-Dtest-target-include=... -Dtest-target-exclude=...
and have the inclusions always override the exclusions since everything is included by default.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought about doing that at first, but I don't love the idea of adding options for every new target category that someone might be interested in skipping.
You mean something like:
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That snippet doesn't really make sense. It makes
-Dtest-target-include=foo
pretty much entirely useless, since you also somehow need to exclude everything else, lest that firstfor
returntrue
givinginclude = true
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW, I think the typical way of doing this (at least, it's the thing I expect?) would be for excludes to override includes, and passing no include filters implicitly includes everything (still subject to exclusions). Probably easier to show programmatically and with examples:
then you get:
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
-Dtest-target-exclude=""
(matches everything)but I'm fine with the counter proposal suggested above