search for: locationo

...ls from them filtered out, otherwise it will make the > commit list very noisy. Thanks to Törok, I think I have the validator buildbot working. The recipe I have does this: * Build llvm * Run make check on llvm * Build llvm-gcc, pointed to the just-built llvm * Install llvm-gcc in a temporary locationo * Build llvm again, pointing to the just-installed llvm-gcc * Run make check on llvm * Run llvm-test If all of these pass, the validation is considered to succeed. I can easily add make check on llvm-gcc if/when we support it. I'd like to take advantage of any tagging infrastructure you add....

...the >> commit list very noisy. > > Thanks to Törok, I think I have the validator buildbot working. The > recipe > I have does this: > > * Build llvm > * Run make check on llvm > * Build llvm-gcc, pointed to the just-built llvm > * Install llvm-gcc in a temporary locationo > * Build llvm again, pointing to the just-installed llvm-gcc > * Run make check on llvm > * Run llvm-test > > If all of these pass, the validation is considered to succeed. > How do you determine if llvm-test passes? You need some post processing to compare it to some known va...

2009/7/15 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>: > I'm not too keen about seeing buildbots play with trunk ;) > > 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. I don't know anything about svn performance. Would this negatively impact llvm.org, which is already pretty strained?

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