similar to: [LLVMdev] Using CMake/Ninja on buildbots

On Wednesday 06 February 2013 21:41:06 Renato Golin wrote: 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

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

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > 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

On 24.02.2015 17:45, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 09.02.2015 20:12, Chris Bieneman wrote: >> It came up on another thread that our current minimum required CMake >> version 2.8.8, has some bugs that cause issues when building with MSVC >> + Ninja, and one potential solution was to raise the minimum required >> version of CMake. >> >> CMake 3.0 is now 6 months

It came up on another thread that our current minimum required CMake version 2.8.8, has some bugs that cause issues when building with MSVC + Ninja, and one potential solution was to raise the minimum required version of CMake. CMake 3.0 is now 6 months old and CMake 3.1 has been released. I would like to propose moving our minimum required CMake version to 3.0. I’ve attached patches to enforce

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > IMO, any functional/correctness difference between an incremental and > clean build should be considered a build system bug, If your (c)makefile underspecifies dependencies, there's nothing the build system can do. > especially for > C++ projects where incremental vs. clean can mean 10 second vs 30

IMO, any functional/correctness difference between an incremental and clean build should be considered a build system bug, especially for C++ projects where incremental vs. clean can mean 10 second vs 30 minute build times. -- Sean Silva

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > On 09.02.2015 20:12, Chris Bieneman wrote: >> It came up on another thread that our current minimum required CMake version 2.8.8, has some bugs that cause issues when building with MSVC + Ninja, and one potential solution was to raise the minimum required version of CMake. >> >> CMake

Wow, this is seriously fast on Windows! I've been using Ninja on Linux/Mac for awhile now, I'm glad to see it working on Windows now. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM, =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= < ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> writes: > > > Could somebody please provide more info. What exactly is ninja (I'm > >

This buildbot looks like it's been failing since Friday - does anyone know/own/care about it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:29 PM Subject: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15-full-sh To: Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>, Cameron Esfahani <dirty at apple.com>, Chris Bieneman

On 08/26/2015 04:38 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:32, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What's the problem with increasing the timeout? Asking people to ignore >> buildbot mails does not seem right. If the buildbot is flaky I believe >> the buildbot owner should ensure it shuts up until the problems have >> been

Hi folks, *tl;dr* I'm having some trouble setting up a Windows buildbot and I'm looking for someone with LLVM-on-Windows experience to help me. *Long story* Hans Wennborg recently pointed <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-May/141803.html>out <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-May/141803.html>, that we're missing a 32 bit Windows buildbot and I

Hi, We've noticed that recently some of our bots (mostly clang-cmake-armv7-a15 and clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15) started timing out whenever someone commits a change to TableGen: r303418: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7268 r303346: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7242 r303341:

> On 19 May 2017, at 14:54, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > r303259 will have increased compile-time since it tripled the number of importable > SelectionDAG rules but a quick measurement building the affected file: > ninja lib/Target/<Target>/CMakeFiles/LLVM<Target>CodeGen.dir/<Target>InstructionSelector.cpp.o > for

A tiny question (I hardly know what Ninja is, but am looking forward to trying it out): Does the changes also work with MinGW builds? I've got a Windows buildbot slave that does nothing but building LLVM+Clang using MinGW64 all day, every day. Or, is it only for Visual Studio? 2012/6/13 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > Wow, this is seriously fast on Windows!

On 6 February 2013 16:00, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > Looking at the output from the a15 buildbot it looks like you are choosing > to do a "make clean". > I'm not choosing, this is the default "Clang" run. ;) If more people feel inclined to change the Clang build on all buildbots to use CMake / Ninja, I'm up for it, too. Galina, have

在 2017年04月26日 16:51, Simon Dardis 写道: > Hi Leslie, > > I've been seeing those failures as well (I own those buildbots). Like yourself, I'm a bit > uncertain as to why they're occurring. I'm currently investigating. I suspect it's a case > that the build directory has gone stale. Perhaps! and buildbots cover how many LLVM Backend targets? thanks! > >

On 5 September 2016 at 23:04, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Let's first see how bad it is once bots are fixed to build the latest > revision. It's only been a few days and that includes a weekend. Of course. I'll wait until all our bots return from the first round to know the size of the damage. I just wanted to warn all other buildbot owners

On 11 March 2015 at 04:14, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Just to rebase things a bit, here is some context. > > - This is a 60+ email thread spreading across a month of time. > - I've not read every single email and I don't think it makes sense to > assume the context of the first email applies to the most recent. I think we all agree that

On 13 October 2015 at 22:28, don hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: > However, the build that failed thought it needed to do 106 steps. It hung > on the 83 that didn't exist. Interesting... > Could this be a cmake/ninja issue? It could. Those bots are not cleaning between builds (or it would take hours). If that's what's happening, I'll have to re-think my