similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM buildbot infrastructure

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,

I’ve had another look, and some of the failing tests don’t use temporary files, so I don’t think this is a case of tests having side-effects. Instead, I’ve noticed that in the build log (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-win/builds/6552/steps/build-unified-tree/logs/stdio), llvm-tblgen.exe is built (my patch modified it), but the table-generation steps of the

Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at our end? http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang -Andrzej On 08/10/2020 00:31, Galina Kistanova via cfe-dev wrote: > They are online now -

It looks like all sanitizer builder are still offline http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 00:34, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits < cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The staging buildbot was up and running for 6 days now, and looks good. > > Tomorrow at 12:00 PM PDT we will switch the production buildbot to the new >

Hi Paula, This error is fine. The buildbot has tested the worker version. 0.8.x apparently does not have that method. The error gets handled gracefully on the server side. At least it seems so so far. That should not prevent your bot from connecting. Thanks Galina On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:11 PM Paula Askar <paulatoth at google.com> wrote: > Hey Andrzej, > > What are you seeing

I'd like to take code ownership of the LLVM Buildbot code. Thanks Galina

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > kinda random, but do we have a centralized list of all of the > buildbots? I see a lot of different URL's in IRC, but no list so I can > check "all of the waterfalls". I'm not talking about the specific bots > (e.g. llvm-x86_64-ubuntu) but the "fleets"

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:32 PM Galina Kistanova via lldb-commits < lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > They are online now - http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/waterfall?tags=sanitizer > > AnnotatedCommand has severe design conflict with the new buildbot. > We have changed it to be safe and still do something useful, but it will > need more love and care. > > Please let me

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,

Folks, Am I right to assume that if I specify { 'category' : "sanitizer" } to my buildboc config on builders.py, it'll only fire builds on "compiler-rt" repository changes? One of our buildbots, http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full, is mainly a compiler-rt tester, and most of the time it fails for problems in the sanitizers (as intended),

Switched all but PPC, I don't have access to them. But they run the same script as sanitizer-x86_64-linux. http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=sanitizer On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > We have a better version of AnnotatedCommand on the staging. It should be > a functional equivalent of the old one. > We need to stress

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

kinda random, but do we have a centralized list of all of the buildbots? I see a lot of different URL's in IRC, but no list so I can check "all of the waterfalls". I'm not talking about the specific bots (e.g. llvm-x86_64-ubuntu) but the "fleets" (e.g.http://lab.llvm.org). Could you maybe add a little bulleted list (or link to a list) to docs/HowToAddABuilder.rst?

Hello everyone, It might make sense to start from rebooting the buildmaster, just to make sure everything is all right on this end. Yesterday I have tried to apply the latest changes from zorg and some of them are broken. Theoretically, checkconfig shouldn't affect the working instance, but the reality could be different... I planned to rollback to the last known-to-be-good revision and

The problem remains after the buildmaster restart. Thanks Galina -----Original Message----- From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:42 AM To: Galina Kistanova Cc: Duncan Sands; llvm-lab-wg at lists.minormatter.com; Galina Kistanova; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-lab-wg] FNT testers reporting success even though they failed On Tue,

Hello everyone, LLVM buildmaster will be updated and restarted after 5PM Pacific time today. Thanks Galina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200120/567b3b5a/attachment.html>

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > It might make sense to start from rebooting the buildmaster, just to make sure everything is all right on this end. > Yesterday I have tried to apply the latest changes from zorg and some of them are broken. > Theoretically, checkconfig shouldn't affect the

This issue is back: FNT bots are reporting success in spite of tests failing, and the "report" text is empty again. Did someone change something? Ciao, Duncan. On 12/12/12 07:53, Duncan Sands wrote: > On 11/12/12 23:16, Galina Kistanova wrote: >> The problem remains after the buildmaster restart. > > The FNT builders are now all failing again, and the "report"

On 11/12/12 23:16, Galina Kistanova wrote: > The problem remains after the buildmaster restart. The FNT builders are now all failing again, and the "report" is no longer empty. Does anyone know what fixed them? Ciao, Duncan. > > Thanks > > Galina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday,

Hello all, I broke the build, but I did not receive any blame email about it. I have a feeling the blame emails are not working. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Could it be related to the last-week master restart (which seems to have reset build numbers as well)? regards, pl