similar to: [LLVMdev] ARMv5 Buildbot

On Feb 26, 2013 2:13 AM, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > The llvm-arm-linux buildbot, although old, is up and running and the only failures I can see were XFAIL, but still being run on ARM: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/2158 > > Any ideas why they're still being run on that buildbot?

On 26 February 2013 16:14, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your question. Fail tests continue to run so we > find out if they start passing as seems to be the case here. If llvm is now > free of whatever bugs caused these things to fail (ie: it's not just that > these stopped failing on this hardware but in all environments the

Folks, David has been particularly militant with broken buildbots recently, so to make sure we don't throw the baby with the bath water, I'd like to propose some changes on how we deal with the emails on our *current* buildmaster, since there's no concrete plans to move it to anything else at the moment. The main issue is that managing the buildbots is not a simple task. It requires

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:15:12 +0200 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 02/05/2012 02:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > I think that it would be a good idea to have a buildbot set up to > > run the test suite with -vectorize. Could one of the existing > > machines do this also? > > It took some time, but we have this now: > >

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:03:46 +0200 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 06/20/2012 11:07 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:15:12 +0200 > > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > > >> On 02/05/2012 02:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> I think that it would be a good idea to have a buildbot set up to >

On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 14:29 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > [+Bill and Bill] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Blaikie via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:39:02 PM > > Subject: [llvm-dev] Fwd: buildbot failure in LLVM on

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:25:13 +0200 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 06/21/2012 04:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:03:46 +0200 > > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > > >> On 06/20/2012 11:07 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:15:12 +0200 > >>> Tobias

This buildbot appears to have been failing for several weeks now ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/19490 ). Does anyone know/own/care about it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 PM Subject: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 To: Aaron Ballman <aaron at

On 06/20/2012 11:07 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:15:12 +0200 > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 02/05/2012 02:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> I think that it would be a good idea to have a buildbot set up to >>> run the test suite with -vectorize. Could one of the existing >>> machines do this also? >>

Hi Xerxes, It seems that your bot is broken for a while now, but doesn't look like a genuine LLVM error, maybe it just need some cleaning / re-configuring the build system? cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130922/165ebcf7/attachment.html>

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:17:32 +0200 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 06/24/2012 05:42 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:25:13 +0200 > > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > > >> On 06/21/2012 04:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:03:46 +0200 > >>> Tobias

On 06/21/2012 04:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:03:46 +0200 > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 06/20/2012 11:07 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:15:12 +0200 >>> Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/05/2012 02:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>>>>

On 06/24/2012 02:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:17:32 +0200 > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 06/24/2012 05:42 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:25:13 +0200 >>> Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/21/2012 04:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>>>>

On 06/24/2012 05:42 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:25:13 +0200 > Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 06/21/2012 04:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:03:46 +0200 >>> Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/20/2012 11:07 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>>>>

On Aug 27, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Xerxes Rånby wrote: > I have recently set-up and installed a ARM buildbot Wonderful. It would be helpful to write up a bug report for the bits that don't work, and then to XFAIL them, so that the bot turns green. People watch mainly for the green to red transitions, and having it forever be red (orange) isn't as useful.

Hi Tanya, Bill, Anton and Martin. I have recently set-up and installed a ARM buildbot that have currently been building since August 21. You can follow its progress here http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux I have also started to investigate the test failures and writing bugreports. Currently about all test failures except are related to the ExecutionEngine JIT and i am doing

Hi, I am currently trying to set up new performance and regression testers for Polly and LLVM and would like to XFAIL two test cases. I am using the LNTBuilder instead of the NightlyTestBuilder out of the assumption that the LNTBuilder is the more modern solution. However, when trying to xfail test cases I realized the xfail=[] parameter of getLNTFactor is ignored. Previously this was not an

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are under discussion, > but > > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more "revert to > green" > > feel to them just

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

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"