similar to: [LLVMdev] Buildbots

Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:07 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >> Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>>> The document here explains pretty well how to add a buildslave to the >>>> buildbot:

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

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 Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:07 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>> The document here explains pretty well how to add a buildslave to the >>> buildbot: >>> >>> http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html >>>

Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >> The document here explains pretty well how to add a buildslave to the >> buildbot: >> >> http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html >> >> However, it's not clear to me how to add a new build config. I would >> like

If you create a slave name and password for me, i'm happy to put one of the ubuntu 8.04 8 core machines i have running it. They are x86_64-linux (you would need to add -j8, which can be done through properties easily) On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 15:59, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:18

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

Hi Daniel, I am executing some test cases on one of the slave and got the following output on stdio screen. "command timed out: 1200 seconds without output" Some of my test cases executes for (~1 hr) and won't display any output on stdio screen. So is there anyway to increase the timeout value to 1 hour or so. PC details are as follows: Linux Box(2.6.29) with buildbot version

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 Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> >> Just received this: >> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. >> Full details are available at: >>  http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 >> >> Buildbot URL:

On Wednesday 28 January 2009 15:59, Tanya Lattner wrote: > On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:18 PM, David Greene wrote: > > I have a buildbot operating to do validating builds of llvm up at > > > > http://obbligato.org:8080 > > > > My DSL has been stable enough for the past few months for me to > > feel comfortable hosting the buildbot there. > > We had a

Just received this: The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. Full details are available at: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ Buildslave for this Build: nick1 Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: 84759 Blamelist: ofv BUILD FAILED: failed compile Apparently the problem was a warning at

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Just received this: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure of llvm-ppc-linux on llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc-linux/builds/3229 > > Buildbot URL: http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: nick1 > > Build Reason: > Build Source Stamp: 84759 >

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

Also, if you want to put the buildbot status with the other buildbots we have on google1.osuosl.org, i'm happy to add your config to the master On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > If you create a slave name and password for me, i'm happy to put one > of the ubuntu 8.04 8 core machines i have running it. They are > x86_64-linux

Hi all, A discussion was being carried on llvmcommits about the extra time for cleaning and re-building objects that didn't need to be built on buildbots. Since they just update the repository, builds could be a lot faster if we let the objects in place. Even faster if we used Ninja with CMake. Is there a crucial reason why we're still using autoconf for all builds? Some of us

Thanks to Daniel, we have a new home for the validator buildbot. Thanks, Daniel! Go to http://google1.osuosl.org:8080 and have a look. -Dave

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. Thanks, stuart

On 6 February 2013 22:13, Arnaud de Grandmaison <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com>wrote: > ** > > I think we just need to increase coverage. Everything you can do to build > (even slightly) differently than other bots is good to have. > Hi Arnaud, I agree building with { CMake, autoconf } x { Cold, Warm } will catch more corner cases than defaulting all builds to the same

We're thinking about running our own buildbot against the upstream llvm and clang sources. I'm talking to our build folks and seeing what they can allow. Maybe we can contribute some build slaves to the osuosl buildbot but I'm not sure. If we do end up having to run our own buildbot, what's the best way to integrate that into the upstream web page and status notifier? Basically,