similar to: [LLVMdev] Debugging buildbot failure

Yes, it's very likely. It'd be very convenient if we could send a patch to buildbots for testing without actually submitting. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Hi LLVMdev, > > > > My recent commit r186623 caused buildbots for

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Hi LLVMdev, > > My recent commit r186623 caused buildbots for s390-linux and ppc64-linux to > fail. I rolled back that commit, and I'm trying to fix to re-submit. > > Is there any good way to debug the issue which does not occur on my local > x86-64 machine? I don't have S390 nor PPC64

I'm trying to understand why the buildbot sanitizer-ppc64-linux1 fails due to my latest patch. It was in llvm::GlobalValue while the reported failure is: strcspn-2.c.tmp: /home/buildbots/sanitizerslave1/sanitizer-ppc64-1/build/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/test/asan/TestCases/strcspn-2.c:17: int main(int, char **): Assertion `r == sizeof(s1) - 1' failed. where strcspn-2.c (below) tests the

Hi Since the buildbot host was updated to Fedora F20 levels, the clang buildbot has been failing with the following: $ /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/lnt.venv/bin/lnt runtest --verbose --submit http://llvm.org/perf/submitRun --commit=1 nt --sandbox nt --no-timestamp --cc /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/llvm.install.1/bin/clang --cxx /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/llvm.install.1/bin/clang++

Hi All, I'm trying to reproduce a failure on llvm-ppc64-linux1 (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc64-linux1/builds/5382) and llvm-ppc64-linux2 builders caused by one of my patches yesterday. Some of the CodeGen/Hexagon tests failed to compile with stack dump problem. I tried to configure and build LLVM for PowerPC on my machine locally but don't see the failures. I had to remove

Looks like the image wasn't attached correctly. Here's the chart. On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Now that 2016 is almost over, I wanted to look back and summarize the > progress we've made to LLD this year, as I guess most people who are not > looking closely at LLD don't know very well about the current

Hi, I just realised that the PPC64 bulddbot is failing because of a rather stupid issue: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-ppc64-linux1 Just removing the additional assembly file would make it green again. ;) cheers, --renato

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

This buildbot seems to have been failing for a while (though it's hard for me to identify the root cause in the logs, as I mentioned in another thread, so it's hard to say if it's the same failure, or if the failure is consistent, etc) - anyone watching it/caring aobut it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Ueyama" <ruiu at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rafael Espindola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:55:20 PM > Subject: Re: lld and thread over-subscription > >

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but > not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion > failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: > the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually > running any of the Clang tests! > > Could one

Here's an assortment of build and run-time fixes for various architectures that we've applied in Debian. Ben. Aurelien Jarno (1): ppc64: fix struct stat Ben Hutchings (2): MIPS: Update archfcntl.h syscalls: Override detection of direct socket syscalls on i386, m68k, s390 Helge Deller (1): Add pread and pwrite 32bit syscall wrappers for parisc Mauricio Faria de Oliveira

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I honestly think that the ulimit of 1024 max threads is too strict for 48 > core machine. Processes are independent each other, so it is not strange > for them to spawn as many threads as the number of cores. What's the reason > you cannot increase the limit? > Yeah, this is

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Ueyama" <ruiu at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rafael Espindola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:46:05 AM > Subject: Re: lld and thread over-subscription > >

From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> vfork support for s390/s390x. Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> --- diff -purN a/usr/klibc/SYSCALLS.def b/usr/klibc/SYSCALLS.def --- a/usr/klibc/SYSCALLS.def 2006-06-07 09:44:33.000000000 +0200 +++ b/usr/klibc/SYSCALLS.def 2006-06-07 13:01:54.000000000 +0200 @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ void _exit,exit::_exit(int) ; A

Hi, Now that 2016 is almost over, I wanted to look back and summarize the progress we've made to LLD this year, as I guess most people who are not looking closely at LLD don't know very well about the current status. I think I can say that this year was a fantastic year for LLD. Now I'm pretty sure that that is going to be a serious (and better, in my opinion) alternative to the

I was successful in compiling asterisk in raspbien except for the following error If I enable the gsm codec. It appears there is something in the Makefile n this directory that needs to be changed. Probably involving optimization. Not sure why it does not recognize the processor since it is one that is mentioned in the Makefile.? Any help would be appreciated. make[2]: Entering directory

Patch extracts MSB/LSB info from /bin/file output and passes it as separate parameret from elf_arch. Then it is sent to impl_file_architecture and checked/ Modified magic_for_file to handle regex changes. Now with tests for file_architecture. Fixes: RHBZ#1211996 Maros Zatko (2): inspector: recognize ppc64 and ppc64le archs (RHBZ#1211996) tests: ppc64 and ppc64le for file_architecture

Hey Galina, Will; I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually running any of the Clang tests! Could one of you tweak this build bot's configuration to match the other