similar to: [LLVMdev] Call for Help: Testing

On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:52 AM, David Greene wrote: > There was a short discussion in the comments of PR6696 about Linux > testing. > > The 2.7 release is slipping primarily because there are x86-32 problems to > fix (there is also a Darwin problem and some other issues). > While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is not why the release is slipping. We need

On 04/06/2010 09:52 AM, David Greene wrote: > The second problem is the lack of x86-32 testing on Linux. This is only > going to get worse as x86-32 desktops and servers continue to disappear. > > Pretty much the only way you'll get an x86-32 these days is by purchasing an > Atom netbook or laptop. Unfortunately, these kinds of devices don't suit > themselves well to

On 04/06/2010 11:45 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is > not why the release is slipping. We need more people to fix bugs. It > can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release. > > We need more people in the community to help and I can't see any way > of sugar coating this message. I don't know

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:52:47 Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 04/06/2010 11:45 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is > > not why the release is slipping. We need more people to fix bugs. It > > can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release. > > > > We need more people in the community to

Hi David, > The second problem is the lack of x86-32 testing on Linux. This is only > going to get worse as x86-32 desktops and servers continue to disappear. this is not really a problem if you have root access on an x86-64 box. It is quite easy to install a 32 bit chroot environment. That's what I'm using on my laptop for testing x86-32. You really can't tell it's not

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:12:04 Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi David, > > > The second problem is the lack of x86-32 testing on Linux. This is only > > going to get worse as x86-32 desktops and servers continue to disappear. > > this is not really a problem if you have root access on an x86-64 box. It > is quite easy to install a 32 bit chroot environment. That's what

Hi all, I've finally gotten around to setting up the netbook that controls my UPS and I would like to make sure that I've got the metacode correct before configuring nut :) Here's what I've got: Belkin UPS F6C120auUNV * Batteries recently replaced * On battery: 24 port switch, PoE AP, antenna power booster, ADSL modem, MythTV server, 19" monitor * On surge

On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:04 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:52:47 Dustin Laurence wrote: >> On 04/06/2010 11:45 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is >>> not why the release is slipping. We need more people to fix bugs. It >>> can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every

On 03/30/2010 09:21 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > On 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> Thanks for testing the release! >> >>> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3, >>> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself, >>> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc. >>> >>> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs

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 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?

Hi all! I've just installed C7 on my netbook that already contained Win7 (and also Fedora 19, which the C7 is intended to replace). The Fedora installer had found the windows installation and it appeared in the grub menu, and was bootable and worked fine. The C7 installer did not put the windows installation into the grub menu. with some googling I found a page at

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

Are there any known issues with using bacula with centos 4.2? How about a recipe of some kind? Thanks in advance! dnk

I persuaded a reluctant friend to buy a new computer. I enthusiastically extolled the joys and benefits of Centos and promised to install it on his new machine - dual booting with Micro$oft Windoze 7. His super-duper new laptop arrived. Acer, AMD 4 core, fast etc. but not as nice looking as my impressive HP DV5. The wireless refused to connect. After 8 hours on Saturday I could sometimes see

The gigabit NIC on my mainboard died, and I am currently running on a PCI 10/100 nic. I want to get a gigabit NIC installed as soon as possible, preferably a PCI-Express one, but I am not sure what will and won''t work with the native xen kernel, and I don''t really want to custom build my own kernel because I have yet to successfully compile a xen kernels in spite of the fact

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 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Thanks for testing the release! > >> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3, >> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself, >> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc. >> >> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs 2.6 >> compared to my results from Aug 31 2009, ignoring CBE

I've got a netbook, circe 2009. When I got it, not that I was wild about ubuntu, but there was specifically an ubuntu netbook remix. Well, it's a few years later - has anyone put CentOS (6, preferably) on a netbook, and were there any problems? mark

I have a client with 20 GXP-2000s. Everything seems to be working fine. However, after a couple of weeks of use, the client is having a hard time adjusting to the new IP based phone systems and only misses one feature from their old Lucent system. That is, they had 8 analog lines before and all their old Lucent phones showed a button for each line. So, it was easy for anyone to say,