Comment 12 for bug 1993819
Revision history for this message
| Zixing Liu (liushuyu-011) wrote Re: MIR: cargo, dh-cargo | #12 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
> This seems to be a little random. Shouldn't the tests which ought to pass on a given architecture be really identified as such? It seems that it’s an open gate for unnoticed regressions, or is there a some kind of manifest of "this tests passed in the previous build on that architecture, and so, it should pass again with the new build'?
The upstream only setup CI testing for Tier 1 platforms (due to technical and resource constraints). So Tier 2 and Tier 3 platforms are untested (Tier 3 platforms are not even guaranteed to be able to build, as there are some very exotic targets in there).
> So, what’s our strategy to read and ensure the warnings that are produced are under controlled and "expected"?
Rust upstream has a mechanism to record warnings and compare the warnings with each run to see what warnings are new.
Since the Rust toolchain needs to be able to compile under the older compiler version, some warnings are likely unavoidable without breaking the build with older compiler (which we need to bootstrap the newer version).