similar to: [LLVMdev] BuildBot contribution for Open Solaris

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: medium; ">Hello LLVM devs,<br /> <br /> I would like to contribute an x86 64-bit OpenSolaris 2009.06 buildbot to the project, at least for LLVM but Clang would be great too if that's possible. If someone would provide me with a password and the necessary configuration, I'll get

Hello LLVM devs, I would like to contribute an x86 64-bit OpenSolaris 2009.06 buildbot to the project, at least for LLVM but Clang would be great too if that's possible. If someone would provide me with a password and the necessary configuration, I'll get that taken care of. Best, Erich

Chetan, the below error is the same than on Solaris Intel: buildbot startup script needs to have PATH set so that it can find the various needed binaries (svn, make, compiler, ...) you may simply want to copy the intel one to the sparc... I'm away from work and back on Jan. 3rd, so up to you to fix it. cheers, Arnaud 2011/12/21 <clepple+buildbot at ghz.cc> > The Buildbot has

As I mentioned on another thread, we also use the term "slave" for the BuildBot builders. In the past, I was told this was due to being stuck on an old version of BuildBot. Fortunately, there is already work in progress to update BuildBot to a newer version. Since that's also going affect all the build machines, perhaps changing the name of the main branch should happen

Hi everyone, I am working with Alexei Starovoitov to contribute an LLVM buildbot for the experimental BPF backend. I am following the steps at [1] to setup a buildbot and I was mostly successful: I was able to setup a slave and a temporary master to check its base config. Now I'm not sure about the next step: patching the "slaves.py" and "builders.py" files in zorg. * Is

Please create a similar branch for Klee; I've been working on porting that to 2.7 as well.<br /> <br /> Best, Erich Ocean<br /> <br /> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Criswell (criswell@uiuc.edu) wrote:<br /> > <br /> > Dear SAFECoders and LLVMers,<br /> > <br /> > There is some new work on moving DSA to the new LLVM 2.7 API.

> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:14:39 +0200 > From: Erich Neuwirth <erich.neuwirth at univie.ac.at> > X-Accept-Language: en > To: R-help at r-project.org > Subject: [R] Re: [Rd] R CMD build/check > > i am trying to compile xgobi ob my solaris box, > but i don't have > /usr/ccs/bin/cc > installed > > is there a makefile for building xgobi on solaris with

Hello Marco, Welcome aboard! slaves.py keeps the build slaves definitions, builders.py keeps the builders definitions. You have to have both. The steps of adding a new slave is here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html. Please make sure you done the step # 10 before bringing your slave up, otherwise it wouldn't be authorized by the master and will be blacklisted after multiple

To be clear: I’m concerned about the amount of our infrastructure (as well as downstream infrastructure, this would be actually pretty painful for both of my downstreams) that the community would have break/need fixing as a part of that. So I want this to happen ONCE. I think it is well motivated now, but switching from ‘default’ to ‘main’ when that becomes the ‘standard’ one seems way less

Galina, thanks again for your help. I have cooked a new patch that should make a bit more sense. I have added the new builder under _get_experimental_scheduled_builders(), as the comment above that function suggested me it would be a good idea. :) Does it look a reasonable start? Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies,

> > 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's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time rather than the change :) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the > ‘cost’ associated with needing to

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)

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > It's a 20m timeout without output. > > If you back up to the build and look at the 'annotate' step output, > there's this text: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17916/steps/annotate/logs/stdio > > -- Testing: 258 tests, 16 threads -- >

Thank you. Alexei just committed the change to SVN. Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies, logical fallacies and repetitions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > LGTM. > Please commit. > > Thanks > > Galina > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:32 PM,

Reid said: > I don't think whether a buildbot sends email should have anything to do > with whether we revert to green or not. Very often, developers commit > patches that cause regressions not caught by our buildbots. If the > regression is severe enough, then I think community members have the > right, and perhaps responsibility, to revert the change that caused it. > Our

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

On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:11 AM, clepple+buildbot at ghz.cc wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Solaris-intel on Network > UPS Tools. > Full details are available at: > http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/builders/Solaris-intel/builds/133 I should mention that this latest round of buildbot failure emails is misleading - the SVNPoller process wedged itself

Hey Charles, 2011/11/24 <clepple+buildbot at ghz.cc>: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Fedora-x64 while building Network UPS Tools. > Full details are available at: > ?http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/builders/Fedora-x64/builds/453 > > Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/ > > Buildslave for this Build:

It's a bug in buildbot. Longer (than 1024, I guess) commit message might let buildbot commits ignored. When buildbot is configured with mysql, such a check is done. FYI, my buildbot tweaks longer commit log, for example; http://bb.pgr.jp/changes/24995 (Snipping is done not in the buildmaster, but on the commit feeder) That said, I wish every guys would not be made afraid of commit message...