llvm dev - Mar 2013 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] llvmlab (phased buildmaster) is in production mode!

On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at
apple.com> wrote:
> 3. Later phases do broader, longer lasting testing than earlier phases.
Thus the 4 phases we currently have are:
> 	
> 	a. Phase 1 (sanity):          Phase 1 is a quick non-bootstrapped, non-lto
compiler build, to check the ``basic sanity'' of the code base and build
process. This generally takes 15-20 minutes to complete.
> 
> While most of this sounds great, this one really doesn't.
> 
> The sanity tests should be able to run *much* faster than 15-20 minutes.
Agreed. I think getting the sanity time down further is possible and very
important. IIRC gribozavr has a ninja cmake bot that does clean builds in <
10 minutes. I think that that is a first step (bringing me to your question).
> Can we prioritize getting an incremental rebuild bot as the sanity phase on
reasonably fast hardware?
Incremental builds are quicker but less robust than clean builds. The nice thing
about always doing clean builds is that it simplify things by throwing out the
potential of any build failures due to a dirty build directory (but maybe I am
paranoid). If we want to do incremental builds (which note I am not averse to
btw), we should at least set up some manner to clean the build directory if we
get a build failure due to a dirty build directory that does not involve sshing
into the machine. Perhaps if a builder fails a number of times in a row, clean
it?

Also, hardware contributions are always welcome = p.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130327/7bf388be/attachment.html>

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at
apple.com>wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at
apple.com>wrote:
>
>> 3. Later phases do broader, longer lasting testing than earlier phases.
>> Thus the 4 phases we currently have are:
>>
>> a. Phase 1 (sanity):          Phase 1 is a quick non-bootstrapped,
>> non-lto compiler build, to check the ``basic sanity'' of the
code base and
>> build process. This generally takes 15-20 minutes to complete.
>>
>
> While most of this sounds great, this one really doesn't.
>
> The sanity tests should be able to run *much* faster than 15-20 minutes.
>
>
> Agreed. I think getting the sanity time down further is possible and very
> important. IIRC gribozavr has a ninja cmake bot that does clean builds in
<
> 10 minutes. I think that that is a first step (bringing me to your
> question).
>
> Can we prioritize getting an incremental rebuild bot as the sanity phase
> on reasonably fast hardware?
>
>
> Incremental builds are quicker but less robust than clean builds. The nice
> thing about always doing clean builds is that it simplify things by
> throwing out the potential of any build failures due to a dirty build
> directory (but maybe I am paranoid). If we want to do incremental builds
> (which note I am not averse to btw), we should at least set up some manner
> to clean the build directory if we get a build failure due to a dirty build
> directory that does not involve sshing into the machine. Perhaps if a
> builder fails a number of times in a row, clean it?
>
It's common to have buttons on the builder page that force the next build
to be clean.  Usually they have some kind of auth mechanism.  Maybe you can
get by with something simple.

Also, hardware contributions are always welcome = p.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130327/b93fe811/attachment.html>

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:09:59PM -0700, Michael Gottesman
wrote:
> Incremental builds are quicker but less robust than clean builds.
Can you do add clean-after-error behavior? I.e. default to incremental
build, but do a clean rebuild after a failing build?

Joerg

(I said the same thing in my last email = p, except a bit more conservative: do
a clean build after 3 failures or something along those lines).

Michael

On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at
britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:09:59PM -0700, Michael Gottesman wrote:
>> Incremental builds are quicker but less robust than clean builds.
> 
> Can you do add clean-after-error behavior? I.e. default to incremental
> build, but do a clean rebuild after a failing build?
> 
> Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev