From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CBD0481BA for ; Fri, 10 May 2024 22:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715381271; cv=none; b=c+Xtb7sV6lDpfKmi47AX4bGJ/QIfkuAaVHLD891Vx2O92lIBZk4Eg+GTjX1YDT7LvE/sQdziQwHsoGKJiu73axAxTKFhawg29nqWqtXQW0QoANiYl0ulSGJPr+V8M04evMOtZfg/W9f9cTWrDA8r6BQ5+HrLD9nnhBes/g8wx1Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715381271; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hdmjAWnd/zvdYblYvX94RtDgNvkam2H9OWmdIQXaLB0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JNpOAoOxoh9v6dMmvjrECVySUeD6DrA5C7MKpnUEsb7D1A0KvIQJWGUn2qmYDW44VZZ+Cz0b+pS1qp497WJe+5iCZtMYT9BJnmJz9cgNr3GMfcVAJZp0dmrD3mLT7NeLx/YolYh51od2psvZoKJcak4zt5WhPUymsyrynZRDr8Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=JvqLJFfh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="JvqLJFfh" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B3D34625; Fri, 10 May 2024 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hdmjAWnd/zvdYblYvX94RtDgNvkam2H9OWmdIQ XaLB0=; b=JvqLJFfhgN7E/q0jWvOpgc3HXWb7YwRNuJCqIzSpUGy8RNYtgeY2/d LJW2TsooZtcqDVjY5xxF8QoSC1s/PDSfjRApgun4r6v2i/XpG6csTMjgW6uh0ANl zMhO1RpQxWp2McrbpFDS3bEYCz1vClHeOXdtCCWhtWV8xKW47Cg8c= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27DE34624; Fri, 10 May 2024 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.153.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2609734623; Fri, 10 May 2024 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Kyle Lippincott , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ci: avoid bare "gcc" for osx-gcc job In-Reply-To: <20240510220228.GA1962678@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 10 May 2024 18:02:28 -0400") References: <20240509162219.GA1707955@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240509162415.GB1708042@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240510220228.GA1962678@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 15:47:39 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4F5E0EAC-0F1F-11EF-8D1C-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Jeff King 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.