Skip to content

Conversation

@Michael137
Copy link
Member

This attempts #132795 again. Last time we tried this we didn't have enough infra capacity, so had to revert. According to recent communication from the Infrastructure Area Team, we should now have enough capacity to re-enable the LLDB tests.

This attempts llvm#132795 again.
Last time we tried this we didn't have enough infra capacity, so had to
revert. According to recent communication from the Infrastructure Area
Team, we should now have enough capacity to re-enable the LLDB tests.
@Michael137
Copy link
Member Author

Pinging @Endilll re. his conversations with the Infrastructure Area Team. Do you remember who was involved in those conversations? Feel free to attach them to the review if you do remember

Copy link
Contributor

@boomanaiden154 boomanaiden154 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, assuming the clang developers are fine with this.

@Endilll Endilll requested a review from petrhosek August 18, 2025 22:10
Copy link
Contributor

@Endilll Endilll left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On Clang side this saves us the hassle of fixing LLDB post-commit when we change our C++ API, shifting those issues left.

@Michael137 Michael137 merged commit d9d5090 into llvm:main Aug 19, 2025
10 checks passed
@Michael137 Michael137 deleted the ci/clang-lldb-tests branch August 19, 2025 08:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants