Just received this: The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. Full details are available at: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ Buildslave for this Build: nick1 Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: 84759 Blamelist: ofv BUILD FAILED: failed compile Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. The mentioned svn revision is a change on docs/CMake.html which, obviously, does not affect the build at all. On the past I received multiple similar bogus messages. While the buildbots spit such nonsense it is reasonable to expect people ignoring buildbot's nag messages. -- Óscar
On 2009-10-21 20:14, Óscar Fuentes wrote:> Just received this: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 > > Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: nick1 > > Build Reason: > Build Source Stamp: 84759 > Blamelist: ofv > > BUILD FAILED: failed compile > > Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is > interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. >I think it timed out: command timed out: 1200 seconds without output, killing pid 22364 process killed by signal 9 program finished with exit code -1 Maybe the buildbot should be switched to do a release build (make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1), instead of a debug build? The release build has less symbols, and is much faster to link. The buildbot is probably using a binutils version that has the huge link time bug in 2.17? Best regards, --Edwin
On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:> Just received this: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 > > Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: nick1 > > Build Reason: > Build Source Stamp: 84759 > Blamelist: ofv > > BUILD FAILED: failed compile > > Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is > interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. > > The mentioned svn revision is a change on docs/CMake.html which, > obviously, does not affect the build at all. On the past I received > multiple similar bogus messages.There are some false positives, yes, but on the whole, sending out such messages helps us find and fix breakage faster. That's good for LLVM as a project and as a community. I'm sure the BuildBot owners would be happy to have help improving the heuristics on these messages, e.g., to ignore changes to documentation. - Doug
Hi, On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote:> I think it timed out: > > command timed out: 1200 seconds without output, killing pid 22364 > process killed by signal 9 > program finished with exit code -1 > > Maybe the buildbot should be switched to do a release build (make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1), > instead of a debug build? > The release build has less symbols, and is much faster to link. > > The buildbot is probably using a binutils version that has the huge link time bug in 2.17?Could be, although I think the main reason for these failures is the speed of the machine, it's an 800Mhz G3 with 256MB of RAM. In my eyes it makes sense to increase the timeout value. Cheers, Tilmann
Óscar Fuentes wrote:> Just received this: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 > > Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: nick1 > > Build Reason: > Build Source Stamp: 84759 > Blamelist: ofv > > BUILD FAILED: failed compile > > Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is > interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. > > The mentioned svn revision is a change on docs/CMake.html which, > obviously, does not affect the build at all. On the past I received > multiple similar bogus messages. > > While the buildbots spit such nonsense it is reasonable to expect people > ignoring buildbot's nag messages. >I've asked Daniel Dunbar to increase the timeout on this machine. Every build which requires libLTO to be rebuilt will fail, but because it's doing an incremental build the later builds may succeed so long as libLTO doesn't change. It's flapping pretty nastily because of that. So Daniel, please take this as a reminder to *really* increase the timeout instead of just filing it away into your todo list :) Nick
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote:> Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> >> Just received this: >> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. >> Full details are available at: >> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 >> >> Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ >> >> Buildslave for this Build: nick1 >> >> Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: 84759 >> Blamelist: ofv >> >> BUILD FAILED: failed compile >> >> Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is >> interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. >> >> The mentioned svn revision is a change on docs/CMake.html which, >> obviously, does not affect the build at all. On the past I received >> multiple similar bogus messages. >> >> While the buildbots spit such nonsense it is reasonable to expect people >> ignoring buildbot's nag messages. >> > > I've asked Daniel Dunbar to increase the timeout on this machine. Every > build which requires libLTO to be rebuilt will fail, but because it's doing > an incremental build the later builds may succeed so long as libLTO doesn't > change. It's flapping pretty nastily because of that. > > So Daniel, please take this as a reminder to *really* increase the timeout > instead of just filing it away into your todo list :)Sure, sure, blame me not all the people making LLVM fatter (err, maybe that is also me)! :) Timeout upped to 30m, let me know if you see this problem again. - Daniel