similar to: [LLVMdev] Self-host buildbot

Galina, Looks like the build bots have frozen. Expected? Joe Joe Abbey Software Architect Arxan Technologies, Inc. 1305 Cumberland Ave, Ste 215 West Lafayette, IN 47906 jabbey at arxan.com<mailto:jabbey at arxan.com> www.arxan.com<http://www.arxan.com/> On Nov 18, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Galina Kistanova wrote: Author: gkistanova Date: Fri Nov 18 13:49:26 2011 New Revision: 144978

Hello everyone, We are in the middle of porting the majority of zorg to GitHub/monorepo. The following build factories will be ported and if you use one of those for your bots, you are all covered: * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeBuildFactory (31 bots) * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeGCSBuildFactory (2 bots) * LibcxxAndAbiBuilder (23 bots) * SphinxDocsBuilder (7 bots) * UnifiedTreeBuilder (11

We want to switch running our slave bot with clang/llvm instead of gcc. We have the following proposed patch. We can't test this in our environment but will monitor and adjust if there are issues. svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk zorg mips-builder.patch Index: buildbot/osuosl/master/config/builders.py ===================================================================

Hi Richard, Marco, I noticed that you two are the remaining bot owners using the `getClangBuildFactory` from `ClangBuilder`. All the other bots using that builder have moved to the new `getClangCMakeBuildFactory`, including Windows ones. Given that they do similar functionalities, I'd like to encourage you to move to the new factory, so that we can simplify the builder's code. Thanks!

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:07 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>> The document here explains pretty well how to add a buildslave to the >>> buildbot: >>> >>> http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html >>>

Hi Galina, It seems that our libcxx bots are now triggering builds for any changes to llvm: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-aarch64-linux/builds/2434 Should I file a bug report for this? Thanks, Diana On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 11:36, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > The staging master is

Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:07 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >> Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>>> The document here explains pretty well how to add a buildslave to the >>>> buildbot:

Hello build bot owners! The staging master is ready. Please feel free to use it to make sure your bots would work well with the monorepo and github. The following builders could be configured to build monorepo: * clang-atom-d525-fedora-rel * clang-native-arm-lnt-perf * clang-cmake-armv7-lnt * clang-cmake-armv7-selfhost-neon * clang-cmake-armv7-quick * clang-cmake-armv7-global-isel *

Renato, thanks for the heads-up. For clang-bpf-build the change should be trivial since we don't use a fancy configuration. I have attached the patch, please apply if appropriate. Thanks. Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies, logical fallacies and repetitions. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin

I think what she is referring to was that the build seemed to be triggered by a commit to a project that shouldn't trigger builds on a libcxx bot (i.e. the change was in llvm). I have a somewhat orthogonal but related question. In the past, commits to compiler-rt did not trigger builds on llvm/clang/sanitizer bots. Has this behaviour been rectified with the move to github? I am really sorry

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:24 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:07 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >>> Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>>>> The

Hello, I played with Clang + LLVM 3.1 release on ARM Linux and suspected it is incompatible with GCC. My program works fine while compiled using GCC but will crash with Clang. Specifically, the alignment strategy of Clang confused me. I wrote a small program to print the structure layout of the following and compiled it with both Clang and GCC. struct S { pthread_mutex_t mutex;

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > The following failures are consistent on buildbot (and my local box). [...] > LLVM :: Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/post-inc-icmpzero.ll > LLVM :: Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/2012-07-18-LimitReassociate.ll It is interesting that I don't see this on my ARM box. Instead I see these: Failing

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: > The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with > > make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile > > and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in

The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in a Release-Asserts build it might not.) Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: cfe-dev-bounces

Hi, I am new to LLVM I want to use llvm and clang on Android, I have downloaded android toolchain and did the configure for llvm using the following commad ./configure --build=arm-linux-androideabi --host=arm-linux-androideabi --target=arm-linux-androideabi --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon --enable-targets=arm --enable-optimized --enable-assertions and was getting the error "checking

You can compare your configure/build arguments + environment with the build bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/4313/steps/configure/logs/stdio I'll check how I built my LLVM on Chromebook tomorrow, but it didn't look too different to yours. --renato On 8 January 2013 19:08, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8,

Moving to llvm-dev... On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Manish Verma <manish.verma at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I have been able track down the reason for the difference in output > generated by > opt. The difference is caused when the target triple specified in the > test-case > is not a supported target for opt/clang/llvm. In this case, opt doesn't thow > an

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

On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:39 PM, Grant Erickson <gerickson at nuovations.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:32 PM, Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Grant Erickson wrote: >> >>> I have an NXP i.MX6-based armv7l-dey-linux-gnueabihf system in which I >>> am seeing some as-yet-unaccountable behavior in sshd when compiled with