[python-committers] Is clang testing necessary?

[Brett Cannon]

I've gone ahead and dropped the gcc test build and switched the coverage
test to gcc. If we find in time that clang's speed is really an issue
compared to its better error messages we can swap the compilers' roles.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 at 04:31 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 March 2017 at 03:54, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > Le 25/03/2017 à 16:27, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> >>
> >> However, from the point of view of making it easier for Windows devs to
> >> debug *nix debug errors, it probably makes more sense to use clang for
> >> the main *nix test run, and then use gcc to do the coverage run.
> >
> > What's the problem exactly? Situations where MSVC is more lenient than
> > either gcc or clang? Usually it's the reverse :-)
>
> I'm mainly thinking of situations where the Windows way of doing
> something is different from the *nix way of doing it (e.g. I hit one
> in the other direction recently, where setenv becomes something like
> SetEnvironmentVarW on the Windows side of things).
>
> While those are generally pretty straightforward complaints about
> undefined symbols, it doesn't hurt to favour the compiler that's known
> for easier to read messages.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20170327/46afd3e4/attachment.html>