[Development] Proposal for Qt 5.10 platforms and configurations changes - SUMMARY

[Thiago Macieira]

Em quinta-feira, 4 de maio de 2017, às 07:34:34 PDT, Sergio Martins escreveu:
> On 2017-05-04 14:53, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira, 4 de maio de 2017, às 00:23:46 PDT, Heikki Halmet
> > 
> > escreveu:
> >> Clang 4: Do we really need this to be tested with Linux in CI? If yes,
> >> then
> >> which configuration it will be replaced?
> > 
> > I don't think we need to. The macOS builds should be sufficient for
> > almost
> > everything intrinsic to Clang. Those of us who test it on Linux will
> > submit
> > fixes as needed.
> 
> We've introduced bugs in the past that would have been caught
> immediately by clang + Werror if it had been in the CI.
> clang has warnings that gcc doesn't have. Apple Clang is based on older
> clang (which one?), so doesn't have all the nice warnings.

I'm not doubting it has benefits. That's why I build with it on my machine. In 
fact, I build linux-clang more often than macx-clang or win32-msvc.

But Heikki's message implies it's not in the CI, so we're not losing anything 
we had. We're just not adding something we've never had.

> I don't know the cost of adding it to the CI, so I won't comment on the
> cost/benefit relation.

That's exactly the point. The question was: "what should it replace" and I 
don't think we can confidently say it should replace anything.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center