llvm dev - Sep 2020 - Flakey failure on clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage

Should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D87103

Shall we consider deprecating(emitting a warning)/removing %T from
lit? lldb, lld/COFF and clang-tools-extra are the three major users of
%T. There are a few other %T in other places but there are not too
many. We will also investigate whether other projects using lit are
using %T.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, good catch! Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
>>
>> This is likely due to a race condition (%T is a shared parent
>> directory). I'll put up a patch to fix it.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is the machine running any jobs in parallel? Would it be worth
trying running lit in the loop, rather than the script? (perhaps lit's doing
something interesting) or maybe the full test run from ninja, but I appreciate
that that is expensive.
>> >
>> > Are there other PPC bots? Any idea if they are experiencing this
failure?
>> >
>> > There are also other tests that do similar mkdir/symlink things, I
think - yet they are not failing? Maybe they do it in some slightly different
manner?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:03 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm
at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure.
>> >> I didn't use lit or ninja. I simply copied the script
produced by lit
(/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1/tools/clang/test/Driver/Output/target-override.c.script)
into a temporary directory (along with a deep copy of the build directory). I
modified the paths in the script to point to the temporary directory.
>> >> Then I ran the script in a loop.
>> >> For running a bunch in parallel, I just produced a wrapper
script to invoke that one:
>> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> ...
>> >> wait
>> >> And ran that in a loop. For thousands of iterations...
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for looking into it!
>> >>>
>> >>> Could you describe your test process in more detail? Were
you running lit from your script? Running the build system (ninja?)?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nemanja Ivanovic
<nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, I am at my wit's end. I have copied over the
script and directories for this test case and run it a few million times. First
I was running one at a time, then I switched to kicking off 1000 at a time. All
the while, the bots continued to run on the same machine. The script never
failed even once. I am not sure if this has something to do with Python as part
of llvm-lit or what is going on.
>> >>>> I am thinking that the best course of action for us is
to mark this test case UNSUPPORTED for PPC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:41 PM Nemanja Ivanovic via
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Interesting, thanks for bringing this to our
attention. I just took a quick look through the last 100 builds and this test
has failed 13 times. This is certainly something we need to look at. We will
investigate and see if we can make any sense of this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nemanja Ivanovic
>> >>>>> LLVM PPC Backend Development
>> >>>>> IBM Toronto Lab
>> >>>>> Email: nemanjai at ca.ibm.com
>> >>>>> Phone: 905-413-3388
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ----- Original message -----
>> >>>>> From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >>>>> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org>, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at
gmail.com>, powerllvm at ca.ibm.com
>> >>>>> Cc:
>> >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flakey failure on
clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
>> >>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2020 6:10 PM
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Seems there were a couple of correlated failures
that appear to be flakes on this buildbot recently:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> green:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13974
>> >>>>> red:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13975
(target-override.c during stage 1, seems to be missing the directory/symlink it
just created)
>> >>>>> red:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13976
(same test failure as the last, but during stage 2, not stage 1)
>> >>>>> green:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13977
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Including Nico & Pavlov as the people who
wrote/edited the test, but I'm guessing this is something interesting going
on on the buildbot itself?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com, whoever you are on the
end of that mailing list - could you take a look at this? Possibly manually
running that test in a loop a bunch of times to see if it fails sometimes &
try to help us understand why?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >>>>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 宋方睿


-- 
宋方睿

Yeah, I think I'd be up for considering deprecation of %T due to the risk
of race conditions/conflicts between tests. %t gives a unique name you can
do whatever you want with - only need one file, use %t as a file, need a
directory full of files, mkdir %t and use that, etc.

But will depend a bit on what the uses of %T look like, maybe there are
some good uses of it that we haven't thought of until we see them.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:33 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
> Should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D87103
>
> Shall we consider deprecating(emitting a warning)/removing %T from
> lit? lldb, lld/COFF and clang-tools-extra are the three major users of
> %T. There are a few other %T in other places but there are not too
> many. We will also investigate whether other projects using lit are
> using %T.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah, good catch! Thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is likely due to a race condition (%T is a shared parent
> >> directory). I'll put up a patch to fix it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is the machine running any jobs in parallel? Would it be
worth trying
> running lit in the loop, rather than the script? (perhaps lit's doing
> something interesting) or maybe the full test run from ninja, but I
> appreciate that that is expensive.
> >> >
> >> > Are there other PPC bots? Any idea if they are experiencing
this
> failure?
> >> >
> >> > There are also other tests that do similar mkdir/symlink
things, I
> think - yet they are not failing? Maybe they do it in some slightly
> different manner?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:03 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <
> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure.
> >> >> I didn't use lit or ninja. I simply copied the script
produced by
> lit
>
(/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1/tools/clang/test/Driver/Output/target-override.c.script)
> into a temporary directory (along with a deep copy of the build directory).
> I modified the paths in the script to point to the temporary directory.
> >> >> Then I ran the script in a loop.
> >> >> For running a bunch in parallel, I just produced a
wrapper script to
> invoke that one:
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> ...
> >> >> wait
> >> >> And ran that in a loop. For thousands of iterations...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie
at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for looking into it!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Could you describe your test process in more detail?
Were you
> running lit from your script? Running the build system (ninja?)?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <
> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Well, I am at my wit's end. I have copied
over the script and
> directories for this test case and run it a few million times. First I was
> running one at a time, then I switched to kicking off 1000 at a time. All
> the while, the bots continued to run on the same machine. The script never
> failed even once. I am not sure if this has something to do with Python as
> part of llvm-lit or what is going on.
> >> >>>> I am thinking that the best course of action for
us is to mark
> this test case UNSUPPORTED for PPC.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:41 PM Nemanja Ivanovic
via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Interesting, thanks for bringing this to our
attention. I just
> took a quick look through the last 100 builds and this test has failed 13
> times. This is certainly something we need to look at. We will investigate
> and see if we can make any sense of this.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Nemanja Ivanovic
> >> >>>>> LLVM PPC Backend Development
> >> >>>>> IBM Toronto Lab
> >> >>>>> Email: nemanjai at ca.ibm.com
> >> >>>>> Phone: 905-413-3388
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ----- Original message -----
> >> >>>>> From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, Nico Weber <
> thakis at chromium.org>, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com>,
> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com
> >> >>>>> Cc:
> >> >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flakey failure on
> clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
> >> >>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2020 6:10 PM
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Seems there were a couple of correlated
failures that appear to
> be flakes on this buildbot recently:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> green:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13974
> >> >>>>> red:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13975
> (target-override.c during stage 1, seems to be missing the
> directory/symlink it just created)
> >> >>>>> red:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13976
> (same test failure as the last, but during stage 2, not stage 1)
> >> >>>>> green:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13977
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Including Nico & Pavlov as the people who
wrote/edited the test,
> but I'm guessing this is something interesting going on on the buildbot
> itself?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com, whoever you are on
the end of that mailing
> list - could you take a look at this? Possibly manually running that test
> in a loop a bunch of times to see if it fails sometimes & try to help
us
> understand why?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
_______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> >>>>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 宋方睿
>
>
>
> --
> 宋方睿
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/5d88001e/attachment.html>

I recall that there was a proposal to remove %T some time in the last two
years. Go for it.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:33 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
> Should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D87103
>
> Shall we consider deprecating(emitting a warning)/removing %T from
> lit? lldb, lld/COFF and clang-tools-extra are the three major users of
> %T. There are a few other %T in other places but there are not too
> many. We will also investigate whether other projects using lit are
> using %T.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah, good catch! Thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is likely due to a race condition (%T is a shared parent
> >> directory). I'll put up a patch to fix it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is the machine running any jobs in parallel? Would it be
worth trying
> running lit in the loop, rather than the script? (perhaps lit's doing
> something interesting) or maybe the full test run from ninja, but I
> appreciate that that is expensive.
> >> >
> >> > Are there other PPC bots? Any idea if they are experiencing
this
> failure?
> >> >
> >> > There are also other tests that do similar mkdir/symlink
things, I
> think - yet they are not failing? Maybe they do it in some slightly
> different manner?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:03 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <
> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure.
> >> >> I didn't use lit or ninja. I simply copied the script
produced by
> lit
>
(/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1/tools/clang/test/Driver/Output/target-override.c.script)
> into a temporary directory (along with a deep copy of the build directory).
> I modified the paths in the script to point to the temporary directory.
> >> >> Then I ran the script in a loop.
> >> >> For running a bunch in parallel, I just produced a
wrapper script to
> invoke that one:
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
> >> >> ...
> >> >> wait
> >> >> And ran that in a loop. For thousands of iterations...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie
at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for looking into it!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Could you describe your test process in more detail?
Were you
> running lit from your script? Running the build system (ninja?)?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <
> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Well, I am at my wit's end. I have copied
over the script and
> directories for this test case and run it a few million times. First I was
> running one at a time, then I switched to kicking off 1000 at a time. All
> the while, the bots continued to run on the same machine. The script never
> failed even once. I am not sure if this has something to do with Python as
> part of llvm-lit or what is going on.
> >> >>>> I am thinking that the best course of action for
us is to mark
> this test case UNSUPPORTED for PPC.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:41 PM Nemanja Ivanovic
via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Interesting, thanks for bringing this to our
attention. I just
> took a quick look through the last 100 builds and this test has failed 13
> times. This is certainly something we need to look at. We will investigate
> and see if we can make any sense of this.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Nemanja Ivanovic
> >> >>>>> LLVM PPC Backend Development
> >> >>>>> IBM Toronto Lab
> >> >>>>> Email: nemanjai at ca.ibm.com
> >> >>>>> Phone: 905-413-3388 <(905)%20413-3388>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ----- Original message -----
> >> >>>>> From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, Nico Weber <
> thakis at chromium.org>, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com>,
> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com
> >> >>>>> Cc:
> >> >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flakey failure on
> clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
> >> >>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2020 6:10 PM
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Seems there were a couple of correlated
failures that appear to
> be flakes on this buildbot recently:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> green:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13974
> >> >>>>> red:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13975
> (target-override.c during stage 1, seems to be missing the
> directory/symlink it just created)
> >> >>>>> red:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13976
> (same test failure as the last, but during stage 2, not stage 1)
> >> >>>>> green:
>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13977
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Including Nico & Pavlov as the people who
wrote/edited the test,
> but I'm guessing this is something interesting going on on the buildbot
> itself?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com, whoever you are on
the end of that mailing
> list - could you take a look at this? Possibly manually running that test
> in a loop a bunch of times to see if it fails sometimes & try to help
us
> understand why?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
_______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> >>>>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 宋方睿
>
>
>
> --
> 宋方睿
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/07ac6809/attachment.html>

https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/lit.html already lists %T as "parent
directory of %t (not unique, deprecated, do not use)". See also
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35396

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:37 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yeah, I think I'd be up for considering deprecation of %T due to the
risk
> of race conditions/conflicts between tests. %t gives a unique name you can
> do whatever you want with - only need one file, use %t as a file, need a
> directory full of files, mkdir %t and use that, etc.
>
> But will depend a bit on what the uses of %T look like, maybe there are
> some good uses of it that we haven't thought of until we see them.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:33 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
>
>> Should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D87103
>>
>> Shall we consider deprecating(emitting a warning)/removing %T from
>> lit? lldb, lld/COFF and clang-tools-extra are the three major users of
>> %T. There are a few other %T in other places but there are not too
>> many. We will also investigate whether other projects using lit are
>> using %T.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh yeah, good catch! Thanks!
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:13 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is likely due to a race condition (%T is a shared parent
>> >> directory). I'll put up a patch to fix it.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev
>> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Is the machine running any jobs in parallel? Would it be
worth
>> trying running lit in the loop, rather than the script? (perhaps
lit's
>> doing something interesting) or maybe the full test run from ninja, but
I
>> appreciate that that is expensive.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are there other PPC bots? Any idea if they are
experiencing this
>> failure?
>> >> >
>> >> > There are also other tests that do similar mkdir/symlink
things, I
>> think - yet they are not failing? Maybe they do it in some slightly
>> different manner?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:03 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <
>> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure.
>> >> >> I didn't use lit or ninja. I simply copied the
script produced by
>> lit
>>
(/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1/tools/clang/test/Driver/Output/target-override.c.script)
>> into a temporary directory (along with a deep copy of the build
directory).
>> I modified the paths in the script to point to the temporary directory.
>> >> >> Then I ran the script in a loop.
>> >> >> For running a bunch in parallel, I just produced a
wrapper script
>> to invoke that one:
>> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> >> target-override.c.script $LINENO &
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> wait
>> >> >> And ran that in a loop. For thousands of
iterations...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:51 PM David Blaikie
<dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks for looking into it!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Could you describe your test process in more
detail? Were you
>> running lit from your script? Running the build system (ninja?)?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nemanja Ivanovic
<
>> nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Well, I am at my wit's end. I have copied
over the script and
>> directories for this test case and run it a few million times. First I
was
>> running one at a time, then I switched to kicking off 1000 at a time.
All
>> the while, the bots continued to run on the same machine. The script
never
>> failed even once. I am not sure if this has something to do with Python
as
>> part of llvm-lit or what is going on.
>> >> >>>> I am thinking that the best course of action
for us is to mark
>> this test case UNSUPPORTED for PPC.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:41 PM Nemanja
Ivanovic via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Interesting, thanks for bringing this to
our attention. I just
>> took a quick look through the last 100 builds and this test has failed
13
>> times. This is certainly something we need to look at. We will
investigate
>> and see if we can make any sense of this.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Nemanja Ivanovic
>> >> >>>>> LLVM PPC Backend Development
>> >> >>>>> IBM Toronto Lab
>> >> >>>>> Email: nemanjai at ca.ibm.com
>> >> >>>>> Phone: 905-413-3388
<(905)%20413-3388>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> ----- Original message -----
>> >> >>>>> From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, Nico Weber <
>> thakis at chromium.org>, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at
gmail.com>,
>> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com
>> >> >>>>> Cc:
>> >> >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flakey failure on
>> clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
>> >> >>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2020 6:10 PM
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Seems there were a couple of correlated
failures that appear to
>> be flakes on this buildbot recently:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> green:
>>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13974
>> >> >>>>> red:
>>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13975
>> (target-override.c during stage 1, seems to be missing the
>> directory/symlink it just created)
>> >> >>>>> red:
>>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13976
>> (same test failure as the last, but during stage 2, not stage 1)
>> >> >>>>> green:
>>
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13977
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Including Nico & Pavlov as the people
who wrote/edited the test,
>> but I'm guessing this is something interesting going on on the
buildbot
>> itself?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> powerllvm at ca.ibm.com, whoever you are
on the end of that
>> mailing list - could you take a look at this? Possibly manually running
>> that test in a loop a bunch of times to see if it fails sometimes &
try to
>> help us understand why?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
_______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> >>>>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 宋方睿
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 宋方睿
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/01acc584/attachment.html>