search for: buildbots

Hi, I had cloned zorg from https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk, then I try to start the buildbot master located in buildbot/osuosl/master (the absolute path is /nfs/home/hongbin.zheng/buildbot/zorg/buildbot/osuosl/master) by simply typing "buildbot start" And I get something like this from my twistd.log: --- <exception caught here> --- File

Hongbin, Did you tweak sys.path? # Extend paths to allow loading zorg and config modules. import os, sys path = os.path.join(os.environ.get('HOME'), 'zorg', 'buildbot', 'osuosl', 'master') if path not in sys.path: sys.path.append(path) path = os.path.join(os.environ.get('HOME'), 'zorg') if path not in sys.path: sys.path.append(path)

Hi All, Recent conversations [1][2] would suggest we need to rethink zorg or at the very least improve the documentation. I've CC'ed Daniel Dunbar, Galina Kistanova and Duncan Sands because it seemed that they have contributed the most code to Zorg Organisation ========= The current organisation of the Zorg repository doesn't make a huge amount of sense from my perspective. There

> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Ubuntu-lucid-x86 on > Network UPS Tools. > Full details are available at: > http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/builders/Ubuntu-lucid-x86/builds/78 If I understand this correctly, there are multiple copies of some of the man page names in the automake variables: /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ../../../docs/man/nut.conf.5

Hi folks, *tl;dr* I'm having some trouble setting up a Windows buildbot and I'm looking for someone with LLVM-on-Windows experience to help me. *Long story* Hans Wennborg recently pointed <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-May/141803.html>out <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-May/141803.html>, that we're missing a 32 bit Windows buildbot and I

...r. Speaking from experience :-), new >> warnings tend to crop up in a large range of commits, and end up blocking >> one or more of these downstream users. These users also seem to span >> several organizations, which makes coordination difficult. >> >> 1a. The current buildbots do not build with -Werror so that they will run >> tests even if warnings are generated. It may or may not be reasonable to >> enable -Werror by default for buildbots at some point in the future, but I >> don't think it's quite reasonable to do so yet (judging based on the...

On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > > >> We've had a lot of churn in all the trunks (llvm, llvm-gcc, clang) >> recently, and the testing buildbots have been failing repeatedly. >> >> I spoke with Chris this AM, and he suggested we have a "stabilization >> day." Please avoid large, destabilizing changes for about twenty-four >> hours. We would like for the testing bots to begin working again. >> &...

...e they (generally) seem to build with -Werror. Speaking from experience :-), new warnings tend to crop up in a large range of commits, and end up blocking one or more of these downstream users. These users also seem to span several organizations, which makes coordination difficult. 1a. The current buildbots do not build with -Werror so that they will run tests even if warnings are generated. It may or may not be reasonable to enable -Werror by default for buildbots at some point in the future, but I don't think it's quite reasonable to do so yet (judging based on the rate at which new warnings...

...failed compile Apparently the problem was a warning at configure time that is interpreted as a failure by the buildbot. The mentioned svn revision is a change on docs/CMake.html which, obviously, does not affect the build at all. On the past I received multiple similar bogus messages. While the buildbots spit such nonsense it is reasonable to expect people ignoring buildbot's nag messages. -- Óscar

Hi all, There's been a recent bootstrap failure that might be covered up because of another failure. I just wanted to point this out so that people can take a look: -bw Here's the failure from our buildbot: Assertion failed: (DestReg == VirtReg && "Unknown load situation!"), function RewriteMBB, file /Volumes/Sandbox/Buildbot/llvm/build.llvm-

> > Ah! This is the one that's messing up. Could someone take a look at > this and see why it's failing? It doesn't even seem to be getting to > the "svn" checkout. > > Hi Bill, [sorry I was not subscribed to llvm-testresults, and noticed this only now] This is a buildbot bug apparently, see http://buildbot.net/trac/ticket/284 and

That would explain it. The commit messages were quite long (especially the second one) and a commit with a smaller message has shown up. Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to keep them a bit more reasonable in future. > -----Original Message----- > From: NAKAMURA Takumi [mailto:geek4civic at gmail.com] > Sent: 15 November 2013 16:28 > To: Daniel Sanders > Cc: LLVM Developers

These URLs don't work for me. How do I know what is broken? It builds fine on my x86 linux box. -----Original Message----- From: buildbot at google1.osuosl.org [mailto:buildbot at google1.osuosl.org] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:12 PM To: Sanjiv Kumar Gupta - I00171 Cc: llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: buildbot failure in llvm on llvm-i686-linux The Buildbot has detected a new

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Fr3ddie <fr3ddie at fr3ddie.it> wrote: > Charles Lepple wrote: >> When something gets updated, you would then run 'svn update' to pull >> the latest changes in. > > Ok. > >> The dependencies are set up such that if only one driver is changed >> during the SVN update, running 'make' on that directory should

...to build with -Werror. Speaking from experience :-), new warnings tend > to crop up in a large range of commits, and end up blocking one or more of > these downstream users. These users also seem to span several > organizations, which makes coordination difficult. > > 1a. The current buildbots do not build with -Werror so that they will run > tests even if warnings are generated. It may or may not be reasonable to > enable -Werror by default for buildbots at some point in the future, but I > don't think it's quite reasonable to do so yet (judging based on the rate > a...

Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at our end? http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang -Andrzej On 08/10/2020 00:31, Galina Kistanova v...

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 15:43, Török Edwin wrote: > >> How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work? >> Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots pass. > > We've talked about this before and I've been working on setting up > such a system.  Unfortunately, I can't figure out why my buildbots > fail to configure llvm-gcc. I plan to check my buildbot configuration "stuff" into the llvm-project repository soon....

...> problem: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f60686f35cc89504f3411f49cf16a651a74be6eb > > Best, > Paula Askar > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:43 AM Andrzej Warzynski via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot > > master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead > > and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at > > our end? > > > > http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang >...

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the >> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get >> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. >>

Ah, ...no. please don't hesitate to write logs ;) It must be the subject in the buildbot, not in developer guys. Galina, I'll write up later, how to tweak this issue. It is not resolved in released versions, though. The easiest way is to tweak svnpoller. 2013/11/16 Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>: > That would explain it. The commit messages were quite long