similar to: [LLVMdev] FNT testers reporting success even though they failed

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > All the LLVM lab FNT builders were reporting failures in the same set of > tests > (scimark2, LivermooreLoops, some others). Now they've all turned green but > the > same tests are still failing. I don't see any commits to deliberately make > the > FNT pass, so it looks like someone

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

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

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,

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,

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"

All, This buildbot is getting lots of assertion failures in the test suite. They were probably caused by my commit: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r151049 | foad | 2012-02-21 09:25:52 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012) | 6 lines Changed paths: M /llvm/trunk/lib/VMCore/LLVMContextImpl.h M /llvm/trunk/lib/VMCore/Type.cpp PR1210: make uniquing of struct and

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > This buildbot is getting lots of assertion failures in the test suite. > They were probably caused by my commit: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r151049 | foad | 2012-02-21 09:25:52 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012) | 6 lines > Changed paths: >

Hi I'm running the nightly test suite locally and getting a difference with the output from this buildbot (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fnt/builds/1168/steps/make.test-suite/logs/stdio) For .ll tests the buildbot does the following (look for spirit.cpp in that link. Only comes up twice, one of which is this one)

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 8 January 2013 04:49, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> >> While this should be investigated, >> I'm tempted to just move everything over to LNT instead... > > > That's the latent bugs that David mentioned. I agree we should have LNT and > LNT+LTO

Having worked with optim() and related programs for years, it surprised me that I haven't noticed this before, but optim() is inconsistent in how it deals with bounds constraints specified at infinity. Here's an example: # optim-glitch-Ex.R x0<-c(1,2,3,4) fnt <- function(x, fscale=10){ yy <- length(x):1 val <- sum((yy*x)^2)*fscale } grt <- function(x, fscale=10){ nn

Hi Renato, I've investigated a few of these for AArch64 recently, and some of the results will be applicable in the 32-bit world too. > MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/12-IOtest/iotest.execution_time This is because of disagreement between ABIs over whether "char" is signed. ARM says no, x86 says yes. >

On 8 January 2013 04:49, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > While this should be investigated, > I'm tempted to just move everything over to LNT instead... > That's the latent bugs that David mentioned. I agree we should have LNT and LNT+LTO and possibly other configurations in the future. Regarding your buildbots, gcc12 is easy to replace by LNT, because the

On 21 February 2012 11:45, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Either way, I would try speculatively reverting to ensure it is this patch. > If so, we can keep experimenting with the patch, but it's important to get > the builders back. There are several others seeing the failure as well. OK, I've reverted it. Duncan is letting me play on the build slave

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > This buildbot is getting lots of assertion failures in the test suite. > They were probably caused by my commit: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r151049 | foad | 2012-02-21 09:25:52 +0000 (Tue, 21 Feb 2012) | 6 lines > Changed paths: >

Hello together, perhabs anyone of you, has an ideal, how i can do this: I have a matrix, like this one: [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] abnr2 11425 11425 11555 11888 TIME 2 1 1 2 Cat 1 2 1

Hi Folks, Looks like our LNT ARM buildbot with the vectorizer is running and producing good results. There are only 11 failures: FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg.execution_time (1 of 1104) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan.execution_time (2 of 1104) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon.execution_time (3 of 1104) FAIL:

Hello together, i have a data.frame, like this one: No. Change Date A 123 final 2013-01-15 B 123 error 2013-01-16 C 123 bug fixed 2013-01-17 D 111 final 2013-01-12 and now a want a new data.frame which includes

Greetings, I am new to R and am having trouble with parsing a file with the following characteristics: * Individual results for a single sample are written to multiple lines. * First 16 columns are constant from sample to sample. * Remaining 10 need to be matched up (cross-tabbed?) o (the exact contents for the remaining 10 vary from sample to sample, as indicated in

Hi all, Thought this might be of general interest, I hacked up the pybugz tool to work with llvm.org. It's here if you want it: http://t1.minormatter.com/~ddunbar/pybugz-llvm-0.7.3.tgz Unpack somewhere, and make a link to the 'bugz' script. Usage: -- ddunbar at ozzy-2:~$ bugz get 1000 * Using http://llvm.org/bugs/ * Getting bug 1000 .. Title : Chris Is Buggy Assignee :