Skip to content
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

appveyor not testing every build-option #280

Open
GitMensch opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

appveyor not testing every build-option #280

GitMensch opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@GitMensch
Copy link
Contributor

I wanted to add binaries to the appveyor artifacts and stumbled over this one. We currently have 32/64 + static/shared (2x2), the missing parts are cxx yes/no (x2) and gmpcompat yes/no (x2).

Question: Should I add those to the build matrix as it is currently done (leading to increase of the builds from currently 4 to then 16) or is there a reasonable preference to only check non-cxx and non-gmpcompat once ([currently done in all 4 builds] and enabling those two flags for the current build-matrix = 6 builds in total)?

@wbhart
Copy link
Owner

wbhart commented Oct 1, 2019

Appveyor has a tendency to disable projects that appear to be "dead" with long running tests (especially if they start failing often). Therefore I would suppose they have a preference for testing each option once. In an ideal world we would have a very large compile farm testing all the different arches with random options. But it's far from an ideal world (for this sort of thing).

@GitMensch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's try this a different way: are you ok to:

  • change the current builds to be gmpcompat and cxx-enabled
  • add an ABI32 shared the same way it is currently done
  • add an ABI64 static the same way it is currently done

[note: the PR is unlikely to happen before next week]

Is it correct to assume:

  • gmp-compat is mpir + copy of libraries+header (so fine to provide binaries "for all")?
  • cxx primarily adding stuff to the header file?

@wbhart
Copy link
Owner

wbhart commented Oct 1, 2019

Let's try this a different way: are you ok to:

  • change the current builds to be gmpcompat and cxx-enabled

Seems ok.

  • add an ABI32 shared the same way it is currently done
  • add an ABI64 static the same way it is currently done

Ok.

[note: the PR is unlikely to happen before next week]

Is it correct to assume:

  • gmp-compat is mpir + copy of libraries+header (so fine to provide binaries "for all")?

It just creates libgmp.so and gmp.h instead of libmpir.so and mpir.h, I think, to be compatible with GMP.

  • cxx primarily adding stuff to the header file?

I think there is a separate gmpxx.h. There might even be a small libgmpxx.so. I actually forget about this, it's been so long since I looked.

One of the main differences is that the tests actually check the C++ tests.

GitMensch added a commit to GitMensch/mpir that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2019
GitMensch added a commit to GitMensch/mpir that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2019
GitMensch added a commit to GitMensch/mpir that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2019
GitMensch added a commit to GitMensch/mpir that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2019
GitMensch added a commit to GitMensch/mpir that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants