Add linux-loongarch64 CI leg #111086
Add linux-loongarch64 CI leg #111086
Conversation
am11
requested review from
steveisok,
vitek-karas and
MichalStrehovsky
as code owners
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
the
community-contribution
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke, @MichalStrehovsky, @jkotas |
| @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ | |||
| <!-- Force System.Private.CoreLib.dll into a special IL output directory --> | |||
| <OutputPath>$(RuntimeBinDir)IL/</OutputPath> | |||
| <Configurations>Debug;Release;Checked</Configurations> | |||
| <Platforms>x64;x86;arm;armv6;arm64;riscv64;s390x;wasm;ppc64le</Platforms> | |||
| <Platforms>x64;x86;arm;arm64</Platforms> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aligned with coreclr. Platforms is relevant in VS context.
This should be adding CoreCLR leg only. |
|
The failure is not from mono, it's from corehost tests as I mentioned above. I'm waiting for the new image build dotnet/dotnet-buildtools-prereqs-docker#1311. The caching in docker layer is not ideal so we have to go back and forth each time there is a new platform. |
|
My point is that there should not be "Build linux-loongarch64 Release AllSubsets_Mono" leg in the first place. |
|
@jkotas the name of this leg is a bit misleading but it is basically validating the all native code is compiling including libs and corehost. We have the same setup for riscv. There is no problem in building native mono on loongarch as we can see in the logs. |
|
If nothing else, it is misleading. Can we have a single loongarch leg that builds coreclr and corehost only (without mono)? |
|
riscv64 should be on the same plan. I do not think we want to continue to invest into riscv mono port, for the same reason we have rejected loongarch64 mono port. |
|
Removing riscv mono support would be a step backward IMO, but nonetheless, it should be done in main as a separate PR. This PR is adding loongarch next to riscv to keep it in sync. Future infra refactoring can be applied to both at the same time. |
It has been becoming more apparent to us (core .NET team) that we do not have capacity to maintain two completely different runtimes that are equivalent. If you would like to remove riscv mono support in a separate PR, that's fine; but this PR should not be adding mono loongarch to the CI. |
No description provided.