Skip to content

Add a new clang-x64-windows-msvc-forward-slashes builder.#746

Open
matts1 wants to merge 1 commit intollvm:mainfrom
matts1:push-ovuokmxuukrn
Open

Add a new clang-x64-windows-msvc-forward-slashes builder.#746
matts1 wants to merge 1 commit intollvm:mainfrom
matts1:push-ovuokmxuukrn

Conversation

@matts1
Copy link

@matts1 matts1 commented Feb 16, 2026

This builder is designed to be run to ensure that clang passes tests when -DLLVM_WINDOWS_PREFER_FORWARD_SLASH is enabled.

@matts1 matts1 marked this pull request as draft February 16, 2026 00:03
This builder is designed to be run to ensure that clang passes tests
when -DLLVM_WINDOWS_PREFER_FORWARD_SLASH is enabled.

{'name' : 'clang-x64-windows-msvc-forward-slashes',
'tags' : ["clang"],
'workernames' : ['windows-gcebot2'],
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This reuses an existing worker. I assumed this was fine since the intent was to run this builder infrequently. Please tell me if this isn't the case.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Builders don't run infrequently. They run as often as possible, up to doing a run on every commit. The original suggestion in the PR was to update the configuration of one of these builders, not add a new builder (from what I understand).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From what I can tell, there are mostly only two options for builders to reuse. The clang x64 windows builder, and the clang arm64 windows builder. We could modify an existing builder, though there'd be concerns that the builder would immediately start failing because the tests are not yet passing.

How would people feel about using the clang arm64 windows builder? We appear to have two of them - a 1 stage, and a 2 stage?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You'd have to ping one of the owners of that bot. Ideally the configuration should be green before switching a buldbot over to it.

script="clang-windows.py",
depends_on_projects=['llvm', 'clang', 'lld', 'debuginfo-tests'])},

{'name' : 'clang-x64-windows-msvc-forward-slashes',
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The consensus in llvm/llvm-project#179865 was that this bot was important enough to run, but not important enough to spend CI resources to run as a pre-merge check.

I have no idea if this is even possible with buildbot, but my ideal scenario would be:

  • Run it on a schedule (eg. 1/day)
  • If a failure occurs, ideally it could bisect the failure to the failing commit and automatically comment on the commit saying that it broke some postsubmit tests.

What would be the recommended run configuration, and where / how can we configure it?

script="clang-windows.py",
depends_on_projects=['llvm', 'clang', 'lld', 'debuginfo-tests'])},

{'name' : 'clang-x64-windows-msvc-forward-slashes',
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume we want to start with a staging builder. Is that as simple as adding a suffix "-staging"? Or is there no way to add a staging builder, only a staging worker?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The configuration is the same between the staging and production buildmasters. There are no naming differences for the builders. It just depends upon which buildmaster you connect your worker to (staging vs production).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants