Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switch CI on MacOS from macos-13 to macos-14, using just one compiler #1989

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 6, 2024

Conversation

asuessenbach
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ jobs:

strategy:
matrix:
os: [macos-13]
os: [macos-13, macos-14-large]
Copy link

@spencer-lunarg spencer-lunarg Nov 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Currently we have been seeing a spike in start up time for CI to run across many KhronosGroup Repos (sometimes in terms of hours to start)

I have been going around all KhronosGroup repos and been tracking down those running on MacOS as those cost 10x the minutes towards are github actions minutes (which we have an internal issue tracked here https://gitlab.khronos.org/khronos-general/khronos-issues/-/issues/127)

I notice from previous runs of Vulkan-HPP that the 3 current MacOS builds take a total of 4 hours across that 3 builds-permutation, that is costing 40 hours of CI minutes. This change will be tripling it and highly suggest we do not accept this change and limit the MacOS runs to what is absolutely required in the short term
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulkan-Hpp/actions/runs/11608159059

cc @outofcontrol @marty-johnson59

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@spencer-lunarg Ok, I can reduce the MacOS builds again to just one runner, no problem.
Would you suggest to keep macos-13, or switch to macos-14-large? Is there a perf difference to be expected?
From my point of view, it probably doesn't matter, as both runners support the very same set of compilers.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

personally I would just macos-latest

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

as for the [clang++, g++-12, g++-13, g++-14] I guess I would just use the default version in macos-latest

another thing to think about is adding if: github.ref == 'refs/heads/main' so things only go after things are merged

I guess not sure about this repo, but in VVL, after 1 year, I have yet to find a single time where ONLY the MacOS job failed, but everything else passed

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was just told that gcc just points to clang in Mac

Looking at your https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulkan-Hpp/actions/runs/11680120614/job/32522471595 you can see it is just clang using a toolchain

image

and my other question is why someone on a Mac would opt to use gcc and not clang since Apple uses clang for everything to my knowledge

Copy link
Contributor Author

@asuessenbach asuessenbach Nov 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was just told that gcc just points to clang in Mac

That's funny!!
Will reduce to just use clang here. Makes just one release and one debug build on Mac. (For C++11, 14, 17, 20, and 23, each, of course).

@asuessenbach asuessenbach changed the title Add CI support for macos-14-large Switch CI on MacOS from macos-13 to macos-14, using just one compiler Nov 6, 2024
Copy link

@spencer-lunarg spencer-lunarg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for being understanding here

@asuessenbach asuessenbach merged commit 4fb483e into KhronosGroup:main Nov 6, 2024
22 checks passed
@asuessenbach asuessenbach deleted the workflow branch November 6, 2024 15:53
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.

2 participants