search for: bots

Hello everyone, We are in the middle of porting the majority of zorg to GitHub/monorepo. The following build factories will be ported and if you use one of those for your bots, you are all covered: * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeBuildFactory (31 bots) * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeGCSBuildFactory (2 bots) * LibcxxAndAbiBuilder (23 bots) * SphinxDocsBuilder (7 bots) * UnifiedTreeBuilder (11 bots) * ABITestsuitBuilder (1 bot) - based on UnifiedTreeBuilder * ClangLTOBui...

Hello build bot owners! The staging master is ready. Please feel free to use it to make sure your bots would work well with the monorepo and github. The following builders could be configured to build monorepo: * clang-atom-d525-fedora-rel * clang-native-arm-lnt-perf * clang-cmake-armv7-lnt * clang-cmake-armv7-selfhost-neon * clang-cmake-armv7-quick * clang-cmake-armv7-global-isel * clang-cmake-ar...

Hi Galina, It seems that our libcxx bots are now triggering builds for any changes to llvm: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-aarch64-linux/builds/2434 Should I file a bug report for this? Thanks, Diana On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 11:36, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:...

...is referring to was that the build seemed to be triggered by a commit to a project that shouldn't trigger builds on a libcxx bot (i.e. the change was in llvm). I have a somewhat orthogonal but related question. In the past, commits to compiler-rt did not trigger builds on llvm/clang/sanitizer bots. Has this behaviour been rectified with the move to github? I am really sorry if you already answered this question and I just missed it. On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:37 PM Galina Kistanova via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Diana, > > It is not clear from your des...

Hey Galina, Will; I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually running any of the Clang tests! Could one of you tweak this build bot's configur...

...> On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge >> and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems >> OK. > > It's not my bot. All my bots are CMake+Ninja based and are stable enough. > > >> However, if the owner of the buildbot is not known or the fix can not come >> soon, I am in favor of disabling the noise and (re)enabling it when someone >> found time to address the problem and verify the solution. >...

...wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge >> and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems >> OK. > It's not my bot. All my bots are CMake+Ninja based and are stable enough. > > >> However, if the owner of the buildbot is not known or the fix can not come >> soon, I am in favor of disabling the noise and (re)enabling it when someone >> found time to address the problem and verify the solution. > Th...

...d ensure it shuts up until the problems have >> been resolved and the buildbot has a low false positive rate again. > > That's the point I make about solving the real issue, not increase the timeout. > > CMake + Ninja has fixed virtually all our flakiness on all other ARM > bots, so I think we should give it a try first. What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems OK. However, if the owner of the buildbot is not known or the fix can not come soon, I am in favor of disabli...

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but > not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion > failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: > the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually > running any of the Clang tests! > > Could one of you tweak...

Folks, David has been particularly militant with broken buildbots recently, so to make sure we don't throw the baby with the bath water, I'd like to propose some changes on how we deal with the emails on our *current* buildmaster, since there's no concrete plans to move it to anything else at the moment. The main issue is that managing the buildbots...

...gt; On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> llvmbb's job is to inform people of build breaks. However, it seems to >>>> trigger for a big list of bots, and at least one of them seems to always be >>>> broken, >>>> >>> >>> If a bot is always broken it shouldn't be sending email/notifications - >>> generally they are configured only to send email on green>red and red>green >>> tr...

On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but >> not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion >> failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: >> the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually >> running any of the Clang tests! >> >&gt...

On 05/20/2015 11:04 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 18:47, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> One particular irritant is getting emails 12-24 hours later about someone else's >> breakage that has *already been fixed*. The long cycling bots are really >> irritating in that respect. > That's not that easy to fix, and I think we'll have to cope with that > forever. Not all machines are fast, and some buildbots do a full > self-host, with compiler-rt and running all tests. Others do a full > benchmark run of LNT...

...t a *change* which is problematic. >> Why shouldn't we "revert" a bot? > I don't disagree, just don't want to do that lightly. Most certainly > not before we have comments from the bot owner. Why? This is not our policy for commits; why should it be different for bots? Comments within a reasonable time window (2 hours?) sure, but an unresponsive owner can simply re-enable when they get around to it. Just like the commit author can re-apply at a later time. > > >> As an illustrative example, I submitted some documentation changes earlier >>...

Hi, I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage implementation. The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution counts for code

Hello everyone, The buildbot upgrade is entering the phase when the results to become visible. No change is required at this time on any of the builders. The bot owners could upgrade the buildbot on build computers later, at their convenience, as this is not on the critical path. We are going to upgrade the staging bot first. Then, once that is stable and all detected issues are resolved, we

Thanks, Galina. It doesn't explain why the test worked on some bots but not this one, but Justin's workaround is okay with me. --paulr From: Galina Kistanova [mailto:gkistanova at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:09 AM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: Davide Italiano; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Problem with 'sed' on one Win...

...gt; On 29 September 2015 at 18:22, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > This buildbot looks like it's been failing since Friday - does anyone > > know/own/care about it? > > Yes, we're looking into it. > > As you probably noticed, debugging ARM buildbots are not easy, not > fast. Reverting commits at random also don't help with the problem, > and bisecting can take days, if not weeks. So the one week rule to > disable bots is too harsh on those bots. > Is it? While it's failing, the buildbot doesn't seem to be any use to th...

Folks, I know it's a reasonably valuable thing to have the buildbot IRC bot publishing results, but the channel is kind of flooded with the messages, and the more bots we put up, the worse it will be. I think we still need the NOC warnings, but not over IRC. The Buildbot NOC page is horrible and useless, since it doesn't know the difference between "it's red and I know it" from "it's broken". For that reason, I have built my own...

...ing this. I restarted clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15 and cleared > its ccache, I'll be keeping an eye on it. > > Regards, > Diana > > On 5 September 2016 at 05:26, Nico Weber via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> many of the bots on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console don't do anything in >> their compile phase, even if they should. >> >> For example, these bots all don't do anything in their compile phase in >> any builds, even if they should: >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x6...