similar to: [LLVMdev] Test Suite - Livermore Loops

FYI, attached is a way to reproduce the error without the test-suite paraphernalia. cheers, --renato On 3 January 2013 12:05, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > David, > > I got some more work on the Livermore Loops and I found out that the issue > is the difference in the parameters between a single step and a multi step > compilation. > > When you

+Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > David, > > I got some more work on the Livermore Loops and I found out that the issue > is the difference in the parameters between a single step and a

To weigh in here... On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some > thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > David, > > > >

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > To weigh in here... > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > To weigh in here... > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some >> thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. >> >> On

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> > To weigh in here... >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at

On 3 January 2013 16:37, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > My only hesitation here is that using LNT as the authoritative runner > does have a little more setup overhead for people wishing to run the > suite (they need to install some extra stuff). > Yes, there is an issue on shared machines, regarding installing new software (mainly the virtualenv, since lnt

On 3 January 2013 20:53, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote: > All of our internal testers use LNT. LNT behind the scenes just calls the > Makefiles appropriately. So it would be impossible to get rid of the > makefile execution without gutting LNT as well = p. > Hi Michael, The idea was never to gut the makefiles or LNT, but to let all buildbots use LNT to call

On 3 January 2013 16:15, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Part of the issue here is whether or not the Make-based execution is > still maintained/valued. I'm getting the impression that the LNT > execution may be already, or be becoming, the standard way to run the > test suite even when not gathering perf statistics. Michael/Daniel - > is that the case?

On 3 January 2013 21:29, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Fair enough - you could write up a patch for the zorg repository to do > this. > Wouldn't requiring every buildbot to use LNT achieve the same thing? --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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 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

On 3 January 2013 21:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > That's how you achieve this goal. What a buildbot does is governed by > the configuration in the zorg repository (that's where we keep the > buildbot configuration code that is sync'd up to the lab.llvm.org > buildmaster). > Hi David, I had a go at Zorg after the website was back online. As

On 7 January 2013 14:37, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > sorry, what change do you plan to make? Did you work out what the bug is? > My > basic worry is that it sounds like you are trying to hide the underlying > issue > rather than fixing it, please correct me if I'm wrong. Hi Duncan, There are two issues: 1. The LTO bug we found by running Livermore

All of our internal testers use LNT. LNT behind the scenes just calls the Makefiles appropriately. So it would be impossible to get rid of the makefile execution without gutting LNT as well = p. I will let Daniel comment on the rest of it. On Jan 3, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 January 2013 16:37, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>

On 8 January 2013 16:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think LNT is able to run the "nightly" version. I believe it > only runs the "simple" version. > If my python expertise is correct, LNT is able to run both nightly and simple, but the default is simple. And yes, "nt" is == "simple" in LNT. cheers, --renato

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 January 2013 16:15, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Part of the issue here is whether or not the Make-based execution is >> still maintained/valued. I'm getting the impression that the LNT >> execution may be already, or be becoming, the standard way