On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 07:21:28PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:47:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > [snip] > > > [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. > > On Linux, we have the "pedantic" job that runs Fedora and only compiles > the sources with DEVOPTS=pedantic without running any of the tests. We > could do the same on macOS. Yeah, I think the infrastructure is there (looks like just resetting $run_tests). We probably could stand to use it in more places. E.g., is there even value in running the tests for linux-gcc and linux-clang? It's _possible_ for there to be a run-time difference in the compiler outputs, but we may be hitting diminishing returns. The main value I think is just seeing what the compilers complain about. But I dunno. This thread argues there is value in running the tests with the separate compiler: https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.266.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ which I guess would argue for doing the same for osx-clang and osx-gcc (if the latter continues to exist). -Peff
