Patrik Hägglund H
2012-Nov-10 11:21 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need help reading the LLVM Buildbot results
>From r167602 and onwards I get a fail in 'make check-all' for llvm+clang, built with gcc-4.7.1 (but not with clang-3.1) on Linux x86_64:Failing Tests (1): Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-templates.cpp clang: /dev/shm/uabpath/master/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:208: typename llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type llvm::cast(const Y&) [with X = clang::TemplateSpecializationType; Y = const clang::Type*; typename llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type = const clang::TemplateSpecializationType*]: Assertion `isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() argument of incompatible type!"' failed. This made me take a look at the LLVM Buildbot pages at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/. However, I find it difficult to find useful information matching this problem. * Can I look up results for r167602 (or closely afterwards)? (Can I compare it with r167601 or less?) * How can I see if some buildbot is using gcc-4.7.1 (or later)? * There seems to be quite a few failed builds in the buildbots. Which buildbot configurations should I expect to be maintained to produce mostly non-failed builds? * Is there some general introduction document for reading the LLVM Buildbot results? Regards, Patrik Hägglund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121110/ba3a5603/attachment.html>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Patrik Hägglund H <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com> wrote:> From r167602 and onwards I get a fail in 'make check-all' for llvm+clang, > built with gcc-4.7.1 (but not with clang-3.1) on Linux x86_64: > > Failing Tests (1): > Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-templates.cpp > > clang: /dev/shm/uabpath/master/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:208: typename > llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type llvm::cast(const Y&) [with X > clang::TemplateSpecializationType; Y = const clang::Type*; typename > llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type = const > clang::TemplateSpecializationType*]: Assertion `isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() > argument of incompatible type!"' failed.If you take the full command line out of the build log & run it separately you should be able to reproduce this assert. Depending on the complexity of the test, you may be able to simply remove the "-cc1" that's probably in the command line & watch it fail but this time you'll get a crash report from Clang including the path to a .sh file containing the command line and a .cpp file containing the preprocessed source code necessary to reproduce the problem. If you can file that in a bug we should be able to reproduce & fix it.> This made me take a look at the LLVM Buildbot pages at > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/. However, I find it difficult to find useful > information matching this problem.Don't worry, you're not the only one. This area could use some improvement (& there's some amount of work going on in that area)> * Can I look up results for r167602 (or closely afterwards)? (Can I compare > it with r167601 or less?)I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision across the bots either)> * How can I see if some buildbot is using gcc-4.7.1 (or later)?I don't believe so - some bots indicate something of their purpose/role in the name of the builder, but it's not a well specified attribute. I suppose we could add something to the builder profile that causes us to run a version check on the host compiler (but that would only show up in the build logs at best, not in the builder description). Anything else I think would be manually maintained (which might still be worthwhile)> * There seems to be quite a few failed builds in the buildbots. Which > buildbot configurations should I expect to be maintained to produce mostly > non-failed builds?Unclear - generally you can look at the finite history shown on the buildbot console page & if a bot's been red for that entire time it's probably about worth ignoring (until someone takes the time to clean it up). We should move the dead buildbots aside until someone revives them, rather than leaving them there adding noise to the page.> * Is there some general introduction document for reading the LLVM Buildbot > results?Not that I know of.
Patrik Hägglund H
2012-Nov-12 13:27 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need help reading the LLVM Buildbot results
Thanks David,> file that in a bugI have filed TR 14321. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14321 (Just removing -cc1 altered the behavior.)> Don't worry, you're not the only one.Good. :-) /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: den 12 november 2012 05:19 To: Patrik Hägglund H Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; nicolasweber at gmx.de Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Need help reading the LLVM Buildbot results On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Patrik Hägglund H <patrik.h.hagglund at ericsson.com> wrote:> From r167602 and onwards I get a fail in 'make check-all' for llvm+clang, > built with gcc-4.7.1 (but not with clang-3.1) on Linux x86_64: > > Failing Tests (1): > Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-templates.cpp > > clang: /dev/shm/uabpath/master/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:208: typename > llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type llvm::cast(const Y&) [with X > clang::TemplateSpecializationType; Y = const clang::Type*; typename > llvm::cast_retty<To, From>::ret_type = const > clang::TemplateSpecializationType*]: Assertion `isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() > argument of incompatible type!"' failed.If you take the full command line out of the build log & run it separately you should be able to reproduce this assert. Depending on the complexity of the test, you may be able to simply remove the "-cc1" that's probably in the command line & watch it fail but this time you'll get a crash report from Clang including the path to a .sh file containing the command line and a .cpp file containing the preprocessed source code necessary to reproduce the problem. If you can file that in a bug we should be able to reproduce & fix it.> This made me take a look at the LLVM Buildbot pages at > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/. However, I find it difficult to find useful > information matching this problem.Don't worry, you're not the only one. This area could use some improvement (& there's some amount of work going on in that area)> * Can I look up results for r167602 (or closely afterwards)? (Can I compare > it with r167601 or less?)I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision across the bots either)> * How can I see if some buildbot is using gcc-4.7.1 (or later)?I don't believe so - some bots indicate something of their purpose/role in the name of the builder, but it's not a well specified attribute. I suppose we could add something to the builder profile that causes us to run a version check on the host compiler (but that would only show up in the build logs at best, not in the builder description). Anything else I think would be manually maintained (which might still be worthwhile)> * There seems to be quite a few failed builds in the buildbots. Which > buildbot configurations should I expect to be maintained to produce mostly > non-failed builds?Unclear - generally you can look at the finite history shown on the buildbot console page & if a bot's been red for that entire time it's probably about worth ignoring (until someone takes the time to clean it up). We should move the dead buildbots aside until someone revives them, rather than leaving them there adding noise to the page.> * Is there some general introduction document for reading the LLVM Buildbot > results?Not that I know of.
On 12 November 2012 04:18, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:>> * Can I look up results for r167602 (or closely afterwards)? (Can I compare >> it with r167601 or less?) > > I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are > kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision > across the bots either)That'd be a very nice feature! --renato
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote:>> I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are >> kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision >> across the bots either) > > For me a bigger issue has been inability to see a long list of results for a > particular builder (say, arm-cortex-a9-blah). Unfortunately while I can see > "the last 20 builds over all targets" I can only see "the last five builds > for a particular builder". What's frustrating is that I'm pretty sure the > buildbot is keeping the info, I just can't see how to get it.When you're on a builder's page (eg: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian ) you can "view in waterfall" ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/waterfall?show=clang-x86_64-debian ) which gives you more history (even on the first page it's got about 14 builds & it has multiple pages to go back further) but it's the high detail waterfall view, not a simple red/green build status summary of each build. Having more history in the "recent builds" would be nice (or somewhere else where that could be easily visualized)
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:19 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: >>> I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are >>> kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision >>> across the bots either) >> >> For me a bigger issue has been inability to see a long list of results for a >> particular builder (say, arm-cortex-a9-blah). Unfortunately while I can see >> "the last 20 builds over all targets" I can only see "the last five builds >> for a particular builder". What's frustrating is that I'm pretty sure the >> buildbot is keeping the info, I just can't see how to get it. > > When you're on a builder's page (eg: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian ) you can "view > in waterfall" ( > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/waterfall?show=clang-x86_64-debian ) which > gives you more history (even on the first page it's got about 14 > builds & it has multiple pages to go back further) but it's the high > detail waterfall view, not a simple red/green build status summary of > each build. > > Having more history in the "recent builds" would be nice (or somewhere > else where that could be easily visualized)Also, for what it's worth, the buildbot config can be changed to some constant other than '5' for the recent builds list, but it would still be only a constant across all builders. From the buildbot docs: /builders/$BUILDERNAME This describes the given Builder and provides buttons to force a build. A numbuilds=argument will control how many build lines are displayed (5 by default).
Thanks. I'd made the wrong assumption "show in waterfall" was a link back to the multi-builder waterfall page. That's very helpful to know. -----Original Message----- From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: 12 November 2012 16:19 To: David Tweed Cc: Renato Golin; Nico Weber; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Need help reading the LLVM Buildbot results On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:03 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote:>> I don't believe so - I think only a certain sliding window of logs are >> kept (& I don't know of an easy way to view a particular revision >> across the bots either) > > For me a bigger issue has been inability to see a long list of results fora> particular builder (say, arm-cortex-a9-blah). Unfortunately while I cansee> "the last 20 builds over all targets" I can only see "the last five builds > for a particular builder". What's frustrating is that I'm pretty sure the > buildbot is keeping the info, I just can't see how to get it.When you're on a builder's page (eg: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian ) you can "view in waterfall" ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/waterfall?show=clang-x86_64-debian ) which gives you more history (even on the first page it's got about 14 builds & it has multiple pages to go back further) but it's the high detail waterfall view, not a simple red/green build status summary of each build. Having more history in the "recent builds" would be nice (or somewhere else where that could be easily visualized)