similar to: [LLVMdev] Debugging atom builds?

2013/4/3 David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com>: > Hi, > > As someone working on ARM, we're interested in this sort of issue, to which > there's not yet a complete solution. Some advice below: > > > 2013/4/3 <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org>: >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder > clang-atom-d2700-ubuntu-rel while building llvm.

Hi Brian, The Atom1-buildbot buildslave has been failing for a few days but I don't think the problem lies in the LLVM/Clang source. From the logs at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-atom-d2700-ubuntu-rel/builds/13632 (and newer builds): ******************** TEST 'Clang :: Driver/x86_features.s' FAILED ******************** Test has no run line!

On 3 April 2013 14:59, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > I'd usually expect tests to work exactly the same way on all platforms. > If there are things that must be handled differently on different > platforms, I'd expect those to have a separate test for each platform > with explicit flags for each of these platforms. > You're absolutely right,

Hi. As per[1], gcc-4.8 is the oldest supported *major* gcc version. But what about minor/patch versions? When https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779 was initially committed, a few[2][3] buildbots failed. As i have now looked into the issue: * but it is *REPRODUCIBLE* with gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2 from debian oldstable (Jessie). * it is *NOT* reproducible with gcc-4.8.5 and gcc-4.9.3 from ubuntu 16.04,

Hi, My New Year's resolution is to complain (constructively) whenever I get a spurious build failure email from a buildbot. For new or infrequent contributors especially, they can be extremely confusing and unnecessarily alarming. This one below is the first build ever attempted by the builder, so how on earth can it have come up with a meaningful blame list? And in any case, surely we

Hmm, i guess i should have mailed cfe-dev too. Doing that now. On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > > As per[1], gcc-4.8 is the oldest supported *major* gcc version. > But what about minor/patch versions? > > When https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779 was initially committed, > a few[2][3] buildbots failed. As i have now

+ Denis and Galina who should know about the affected buildbots and whether it's fine to upgrade them or whether their configurations reflect some important use cases. Sylvestre should know if the release process for LLVM on Ubuntu/Debian relies on the older GCC toolchains somehow. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:51 PM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hmm,

This drop-in patch increases the performance of the get_checksum1() function on x86-64. On the target slow CPU performance of the function increased by nearly 50% in the x86-64 default SSE2 mode, and by nearly 100% if the compiler was told to enable SSSE3 support. The increase was over 200% on the fastest CPU tested in SSSE3 mode. Transfer time improvement with large files existing on both ends

This builder is taking too long to build. (The build stops because of a timeout.) Chip On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-amd64-openbsd while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-amd64-openbsd/builds/1103 > > Buildbot URL:

Sorry, for the late repsonse Martijn. I've been crazy busy. Martijn van Beurden wrote: > On 28-08-12 10:46, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > I think thats a great idea. WOuld be happy to have someone pick > > this up and run with it. > > So I got busy but stumbled upon several things. I'm not sure why there > are two boxes displaying the same news on the homepage

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

Hey Alexey, This bot has been failing for a week, by the looks of it - what's the deal? On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:31 PM, <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux > while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17810 >

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL:

Why is there a public GN buildbot that sends emails and IRC notifications? That isn't what was agreed upon. Either un-GM it, or silence it. Roman. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:05 AM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: >

I've read up some more on the subject, and it seems the proper way to do this with GCC is g++ and target attributes. I've refactored the patch that way, and it indeed uses SSSE3 automatically on supporting CPUs, regardless of the build host, so this should be ideal both for home builders and distros. Getting the code to build right in c++ mode (checksum_sse2.cpp only) was a bit of an

This buildbot has been failing for over a week straight ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-mips/builds/9387 ) - does anyone know/care about it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:49 PM Subject: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-cmake-mips To: Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>, Ahmed Bougacha

This bot seems kind of flaky. In the last 100 builds, it has failed "gdb-75-check" 22 times with what is either a linker error or a missing header (or both?): gdb compile failed, /usr/bin/ld: error: /home/buildslave/osuosl_slave/clang-x86_64-ubuntu-gdb-75/clang-tests/build/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/pendshr1.c.o: requires dynamic R_X86_64_PC32 reloc against 'pendfunc1' which

On Sat, May 6, 2017, at 04:28 PM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a failed build on builder polly-amd64-linux > while building polly. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/polly-amd64-linux/builds/6539 > > Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: grosser1 > > Build

This buildbot seems to have been failing continuously for a couple of weeks now ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-mips-linux/builds/14658 ) - is anyone watching it/caring about it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:34 PM Subject: buildbot failure in LLVM on llvm-mips-linux To: Ahmed Bougacha

Should "lit :: shtest-format.py" (from check-lit) be marked unsupported on PS4? It seems flakey there. This evening, it failed on my commit, r337514, and I'm fairly confident it wasn't my commit's fault. Then it recovered on the next commit. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-ubuntu-fast/builds/33502