search for: botting

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

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 *

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: > > Hello everyone, > > The staging master is

I think what she 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

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 configuration to match the other

> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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.

On 08/26/2015 08:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev 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.

On 08/26/2015 04:38 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:32, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What's the problem with increasing the timeout? Asking people to ignore >> buildbot mails does not seem right. If the buildbot is flaky I believe >> the buildbot owner should ensure it shuts up until the problems have >> been

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

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 is not a simple task. It requires

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>

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

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

On 08/26/2015 09:38 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:30, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> To say this differently, we will revert 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

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 Windows bot? There is nothing

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > 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

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"

Hi, It seems the problem is that the bot is updating llvm.src, but trying to build from llvm. Galina, it looks like this is related to your recent changes to zorg, you probably missed a spot somewhere and I can't find it on a first glance. Could you have a look? Thanks, Diana On 5 September 2016 at 12:01, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Thanks