Whose responsibility is it to maintain tests using experimental backends?

Hi all,

I recently, on behalf of a new LLVM contributor, pushed commit 740bc366d44c, which broke an in-tree test for the AVR backend (see On the review https://reviews.llvm.org/D72992, a request was made to fix the test or revert the change. This test didn’t fail locally or on any of the build bots, because the AVR backend is experimental and does not run even for build that has all normal targets enabled).

The fix in this case is simple, and I don’t have any real issue in making it, but there’s a wider principle here: if an in-tree test fails but only when experimental items are enabled, whose responsibility is it to fix the issue? I’m inclined to think that it’s the responsibility of whoever maintains the experimental target and/or the bot maintainer where the experimental target is enabled, and NOT the regular developer.



This is why I have never liked the experimental target approach. Having experimental targets only increases the burden for other developers. Many times I’ve changed some target API, and broken the build for the experimental targets. It creates strictly more work for me, since now I have to see the build bot failed, and then go back to do a new build with the targets enabled to fix it. It would be easier to just always build all targets by default.


https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#new-targets says that experimental backends should be supported by an active community, in part by providing build bots and fixing bugs related to the backend. So while it doesn’t explicitly say things about patches that only break those backends, I think reading the spirit of that policy says that it’s the responsibility of the experimental backend’s owners to fix the issue. You can still be nice and fix the issue yourself, but if you can’t, that isn’t grounds for anyone to revert the patch.

This is absolutely my understanding. If we need to update the
developer policy to make it more explicit, we should do so.



Same here.


Thanks. I’ve put a patch up for review to clarify the policy. See https://reviews.llvm.org/D74538.