Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I do think there's value in testing with both clang and gcc in > general[1]. And there is _some_ code which is compiled only on macos > and not elsewhere. So this would be our only chance for gcc to see it. > But it seems like a pretty small return for an entire parallel job. > Especially as I do not think it has uncovered anything interesting in > the past (even when it was working). 100% agreed. > [1] Another quirk is that we run the whole test suite for both > compilers, which is probably overkill. The main value in comparing > gcc vs clang is that we don't use any constructs that the compiler > complains about. It's _possible_ for there to be a construct that > the compiler does not notice but which causes a runtime difference > (say, undefined behavior which happens to work out on one compiler), > but I think we're again hitting diminishing returns. Yeah, that is a very good point.
