similar to: [LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk

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

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

On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:43 PMPDT, Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: >> I wonder if we might be able to automate the stabilization somewhat. >> I'm not at all sure this can be done without introducing worse >> problems that it solves, but here's some discussion fodder:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:43 PMPDT, Török Edwin wrote: >> On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > >>> I wonder if we might be able to automate the stabilization somewhat. >>> I'm not at all sure this can be

The first buildbot failure I can readily find was Monday, 26oct2009 around 7PM PDT. The assertion is Assertion failed: ((i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) == Params[i]->getType()) && "Calling a function with a bad signature!"), function init, file /Volumes/Sandbox/Buildbot/llvm/

On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:23 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > The first buildbot failure I can readily find was Monday, 26oct2009 > around 7PM PDT. The assertion is > > Assertion failed: ((i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) > == Params[i]->getType()) && "Calling a function with a bad > signature!"), function init, file

On OS X, this test: ------------------------------------------------------ #include <llvm/ADT/DenseSet.h> #include <new> #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char** argv) { llvm::DenseSet<unsigned> set(2); set.insert(0); set.insert(1); if (set.count(2)) printf("error\n"); return 0; } ------------------------------------------------------ saved

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. Is there a link to the

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 10:42, Xen patchbot -unstable wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User smh22@firebug.cl.cam.ac.uk > # Node ID 59e76450e286240decceda23eca343ec4604124f > # Parent 48dea637aac96bcbabe788d036b52570520cc82e > Fixes. Sorry, but could we not make checkin comments like "Fixes."? It would just take a few more seconds to describe it in a complete

The buildbots are unhappy again. :-( Specifically, the "llvm-gcc-i386-darwin9" buildbot here at Apple last compiled TOT successfully yesterday morning (31aug); that was revision 80586. By revision 80589, the bootstrap failed due to a miscompare, and by revision 80610, it's aborting while compiling little pieces of libgcc. 80586 built O.K. (about 8AM, Pacific Standard

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 Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:04, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> 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

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.

2009/7/16 Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > I plan to check my buildbot configuration "stuff" into the > llvm-project repository soon. I have to refactor things a bit to > support use by other people, but currently I have configurations for > llvm, clang, and llvm-gcc in various target / self-hosting > permutations. I also have a regular buildbot driver

On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:04, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > 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

2009/7/15 Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:48 PMPDT, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > > That depends on what you call a false positive. The public buildbot > > regularly fails because of mailing Frontend tests, and I have had > > continues failures of some DejaGNU tests for a long time on some > > builders. Its not a false positive per

On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:48 PMPDT, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > That depends on what you call a false positive. The public buildbot > regularly fails because of mailing Frontend tests, and I have had > continues failures of some DejaGNU tests for a long time on some > builders. Its not a false positive per se, but one starts to ignore > the failures because they aren't unexpected. Yes.

Hi, Do any body know which packages of R I need to go for the below topics? 1. Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) 2. Gibbs Sampling 3. Metropolis Hastings Thanks in advance... Shubha [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:42 -0500, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Le jeudi 13 janvier 2005 ? 10:59 -0500, Jared Whitby a ?crit : > > Interestingly enough.. I started playing around with preprocessing > > options in 1.1.6 and happened upon the denoise filter > > (SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_DENOISE). When i run the test tone using that > > option it is completely filtered out and I

On Apr 28, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Stuart Hastings wrote: > I think this is abusing DenseSet.h, but the bug report says it used to > work... I never claimed any such thing. :) This did come up in a real situation where I know the size of a particular set. The set can get large enough to justify giving size advice to the implementation, but it can also be quite small, which triggered this