[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] GitLab CI: crude mapping of PMM's scripts to jobs
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] GitLab CI: crude mapping of PMM's scripts to jobs |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Feb 2020 13:02:41 +0000 |
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 19:34, Cleber Rosa <address@hidden> wrote:
> Also, the build and make steps worked fine without `--disable-gnutls`.
> I was trying to not carry over any "exception" type of arguments,
> unless they proved to be necessary. Maybe Peter can give some more
> info about this (should it be kept or not)?
A lot of those config options are random historical accident:
I probably added in the configure option to work around something
years back and then never bothered to undo it. I agree that if we
don't need to pass that option to run on whatever OS the CI
job is running on we shouldn't keep it.
More generally, I don't think we should worry much about
exactly replicating the fine detail of the various configurations I
currently run on x86. If we basically cover:
* a debug build
* a non-debug build
* a linux-user --static build
* a clang build with the sanitizers enabled [+]
* windows crossbuilds
* a --disable-tcg build
* an --enable-tci-interpreter build
* and at least one of the above is done as an "incremental"
build and one as a "make clean and then build"
then that's the same coverage we have today.
[+] my scripts do this by hand by passing a lot of extra cflags,
but IIRC configure now supports a simple 'enable sanitizers'
option of some kind, which would be OK too
thanks
-- PMM
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] GitLab CI: crude mapping of PMM's scripts to jobs, Thomas Huth, 2020/02/07
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] GitLab CI: crude mapping of PMM's scripts to jobs, Peter Maydell, 2020/02/07