similar to: [LLVMdev] More than one buildbots per box

Hi guys, I have this ODROID XU (quad-core ARMv7 Cortex A15 1,6 GHz) box that I want to make available to the LLVM project. I can see that LLVM already has an ARMv7 Cortex A9 system doing Clang, but how should this box be used, if at all? We're talking a long-term commitment within the realm of being a buildbot slave. It builds LLVM in about 40 minutes, excluding the test suite.

Hi Dmitri, I am not using any kind of cache (didn't even know of ccache). I have now installed ccache. Perhaps ccache should be mentioned in the buildbot document so that every buildbot owner knows about it? It is currently running Arch Linux ARM. if there are good reasons to switch to something else, I'll be happy to do that, although I am generally very happy about Arch Linux.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have this ODROID XU (quad-core ARMv7 Cortex A15 1,6 GHz) box that I want > to make available to the LLVM project. I can see that LLVM already has an > ARMv7 Cortex A9 system doing Clang, but how should this box be used, if at > all? We're talking a long-term commitment

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 >> >> However, it's not clear to me how to add a new build config. I would >> like

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:

Hi Galina, I am working on getting a new Windows bot up and running. Would you please review and apply the attached patch when you have a moment. Thanks, Mike Edwards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160201/70f2ab88/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- Index:

Chandler, I may be doing this wrong, but I'm getting a weird error in building LLVM with Clang via CMake. On x86_64: $ CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -G Ninja ../../src/llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_BUILD_TESTS=True -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=True On ARM: $ CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -G Ninja ../src/ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../install

> Please go ahead. We can host the buildbot here: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/buildslaves/gribozavr4 Thanks. I guess I'll have to do some reading because I don't have a good high level understanding of how the build bot works. For gribozavr4 does that mean running a new buildbot slave process on the machine or can slaves build multiple configurations (is this the same as what

Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> writes: > Also, you don't need to do a 2-step bootstrap to catch warnings from > gcc. You also don't need a debug build, just an optimized one -- > since it is faster to link, and gcc emits more warnings when > optimization is no. Actually, there are cases a debug build catches that an optimized build doesn't because

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 >>>

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>>

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov > <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello, JFYI so that no work will be duplicated. My colleagues and I will take care of converting the rest of the documentation to rst. Dmitri -- main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > http://llvm.lyngvig.org/Articles/How-to-Setup-an-Arch-Linux-Buildbot-for-LLVM > Notice: You only need Ninja for the test build; none of the official LLVM builders use Ninja as far as I know. My buildbots use ninja. > Please notice that you must specify the absolute path to ninja, otherwise CMake

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>>>

On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> I agree that a command line option would be better. But in that case >> all tests should be updated. It is not an issue for me -- it is >> mostly mechanical. So should I change tests to use %FileCheck? > > Here's a third attempt. Thanks in advance for driving this forward.

On 28 January 2013 19:17, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > does a build in 9min. With ccache (nothing fancy -- apt-get install > ccache, set CC/CXX variables), time drops to 1:50--3:00 min on > average. > Depending on the hardware (development boards tend to be very sensitive and the kernel very raw), things that you take for granted are not that simple. For

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> When someone breaks a FileCheck-based test on some buildbot, sometimes >> it may not be obvious *why* did it fail. If the failure can not be >> reproduced locally, it can

Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to put them is alongside the other test outputs in the test output "sandbox" directory. Somewhat orthogonal, but we should also fix up lit to purge those sandboxes before it starts a new test run. - Daniel On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > We have to options: > (a) replace 'FileCheck' with '%FileCheck' in all tests, and teach > 'lit' to replace '%FileCheck' with 'FileCheck --dump-input-on-error'; > > (b) teach 'lit' to replace a plain 'FileCheck'. > > The first approach