Add ARM to CI #1509
Add ARM to CI #1509
Conversation
| @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ parameters: | |||
| uploadIntermediateArtifacts: false | |||
|
|
|||
| steps: | |||
| - ${{ if ne(parameters.archType, 'arm64') }}: | |||
| - ${{ if and(ne(parameters.archType, 'arm'), ne(parameters.archType, 'arm64')) }}: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I use eq(parameters.archType, 'x64') would this cover Linux_musl_x64? Even if not, maybe better be explicit about arches where tests runs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally, the tests would run everywhere and this condition would not be needed. This looks good to me as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reason why I'm asking about that is that CI has financial and hardware limitations which may not be resolved as easy as technical one. Somebody has to approve bill to allocate hardware for ARM64 for example. And given that I see FreeBSD and s390x brewing, and RISK-V in distant future too, I do not see that this would be added to hardware pool so easy, given that even ARM64 not running tests by default.
Again, that's just a question which do not have practical application for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
runtimelab repo is low-traffic and CI does not cost much currently (dotnet/runtimelab costs <1% of what dotnet/runtime costs). The CI costs for runtimelab are not a concern at this point.
ARM64 not running tests by default.
The reason behind this is that it is a non-trivial amount of work to get the ARM/ARM64 tests running for native AOT in the CI (we would want the tests to be cross-compiled on x64, just like the regular ARM/ARM64 build is cross-compiled). If you get the setup figure out, it would be fine to get the tests enabled on ARM/ARM64.
|
Thanks! |
No description provided.