llvm dev - Nov 2015 - Fwd: buildbot failure in LLVM on sanitizer-ppc64-linux1

This long running bot failed on a unused variable warning.  Given that 
several other bots cover the warnings, any chance we could get this one 
configured to not fail the build on warnings?  Doing so would make it 
more likely to actually get to the "sanitizer" part of the testing
process.

Philip


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	buildbot failure in LLVM on sanitizer-ppc64-linux1
Date: 	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:43:37 -0700
From: 	llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org
To: 	Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>, Matthias Braun <matze at
braunis.de>,
Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>, Saleem Abdulrasool 
<compnerd at compnerd.org>
CC: 	gkistanova at gmail.com



The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-ppc64-linux1 while
building cfe.
Full details are available at:
  http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-ppc64-linux1/builds/11199

Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/

Buildslave for this Build: ppc64be-sanitizer

Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source Stamp: [branch trunk] 251610
Blamelist: compnerd,lhames,matze,reames

BUILD FAILED: failed annotate failed bootstrap clang failed run asan tests
failed run asan-dynamic tests failed run sanitizer_common tests failed build
standalone compiler-rt

sincerely,
  -The Buildbot





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151028/ef1f8cbd/attachment.html>

On 10/28/15 23:47, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
 > This long running bot failed on a unused variable warning.  Given that
 > several other bots cover the warnings, any chance we could get this one
 > configured to not fail the build on warnings?  Doing so would make it
 > more likely to actually get to the "sanitizer" part of the
testing
process.
 >
 > Philip

Currently the option for Werror is not configurable and is hard coded 
into the cmake invocation.

The bot does a run in 30-40 minutes so I am not sure why you think that 
is "long running". The similar X86 bot takes about twice as long.

-- 

-Bill Seurer

On 10/29/2015 07:40 AM, Bill Seurer wrote:
> On 10/28/15 23:47, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
> > This long running bot failed on a unused variable warning. Given that
> > several other bots cover the warnings, any chance we could get this
one
> > configured to not fail the build on warnings?  Doing so would make it
> > more likely to actually get to the "sanitizer" part of the
testing
> process.
> >
> > Philip
>
> Currently the option for Werror is not configurable and is hard coded 
> into the cmake invocation.
This seems less than ideal.  The other option would be to do a staged 
build (i.e. have slower builders grab the most recent binary from a 
faster builder so that they're only running the "interesting"
parts on
an otherwise clean build.)
>
> The bot does a run in 30-40 minutes so I am not sure why you think 
> that is "long running". The similar X86 bot takes about twice as
long.
I didn't mean to imply that this was one of the longest running bots we 
had.  Sorry if it came across that way.

However, a 30-40 minute build cycle is fairly long.  In practice, I tend 
to devote the first couple of minutes after a patch submission to 
watching for problems (while checking email say), but after 20-30 
minutes without problems, I've moved on to something else and might not 
notice a problem report.  I'd see it eventually, but that might be 
several hours later or even the next day.  Anything we can do to reduce 
cycle time increases the odds that problems will get seen and addressed 
quickly.

Philip