llvm dev - Feb 2013 - [LLVMdev] ARMv5 Buildbot

Hi folks,

The llvm-arm-linux buildbot, although old, is up and running and the only
failures I can see were XFAIL, but still being run on ARM:

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/2158

Any ideas why they're still being run on that buildbot?

If we can clear those, we can get it passing again.

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130226/d867517c/attachment.html>

On Feb 26, 2013 2:13 AM, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> The llvm-arm-linux buildbot, although old, is up and running and the only
failures I can see were XFAIL, but still being run on
ARM:
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/2158
>
> Any ideas why they're still being run on that buildbot?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Fail tests continue to run so we
find out if they start passing as seems to be the case here. If llvm is now
free of whatever bugs caused these things to fail (ie: it's not just that
these stopped failing on this hardware but in all environments the xfail is
for) then they should just be un-xfailed.
>
> If we can clear those, we can get it passing again.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130226/477581f0/attachment.html>

On 26 February 2013 16:14, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your question. Fail tests continue to run so
we
> find out if they start passing as seems to be the case here. If llvm is now
> free of whatever bugs caused these things to fail (ie: it's not just
that
> these stopped failing on this hardware but in all environments the xfail is
> for) then they should just be un-xfailed.
>
Sorry, I got confused... starting over...

Some tests fail on ARMv7, others on ARMv5, and ExecutionEngine is old
enough (and never worked properly on ARM) for me to care much for it. My
question, and I think I have answered, is if it was possible to specify
sub-arch, and it is if it's in the triple (right?), so "XFAIL:
armv5"
should do the trick if "armv5" is in the triple.

I confirm that the attached patch worked on my Panda and my laptop
(x86_64), but I think it won't work on the llvm-arm-linux bot, since
it's
nor forcing "armv5" triple, but "arm-pc-linux" which
won't match, though
the armv7 ones will not XFAIL on it, thus passing. I'll commit and see how
it behaves on the armv5 bot.

David / Xerxes / Galina,

Is it ok if we change the buildmaster to call that bot-group
"llvm-armv5-linux" or "llvm-arm-926"? So I can force the
triple on the
buildmaster config?

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130226/727833fe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: armv5-tests.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130226/727833fe/attachment.obj>