similar to: [LLVMdev] New OS X and Jenkins based build cluster

I can see why that would annoy you. The intent here was to beef up the OS X testing, which had become really weak. This was a lateral move, we replaced an old build master that was OS X with a new build master which is OS X. At a technical level, there are lots of ways we could have a unified view over all of the CI systems. We need to sort out the who and what of project like that. > On

There as been a bit of talk about zorg recently, so I thought this would be a good time to share our plans for the darwin buildbots that live here: http://lab.llvm.org:8013/builders <http://lab.llvm.org:8013/builders> To be clear, those are not these buildbots: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders> We are not talking about changing the main

Hello LLVM Dev and Clang Dev! David Dean and I just finished bringing up a new build master on lab.llvm.org, llvmlab, which is located at the url http://lab.llvm.org:8013 and is in #llvm under the username llvmlab. llvmlab is different than the current buildbot based continuous integration systems llvm uses; llvmlab is a phased builder based system. The high level details of the phased builder

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 *

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 9/25/2016 - 10/1/2016. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the last week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed

On 05/19/2015 08:50 PM, Chris Matthews wrote: > Just some stats, after looking through lab.llvm.org > <http://lab.llvm.org>:8011 > > Maybe these should be marked as experimental, and removed from the > builders link on the main page. > > Never passed at all: > libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-cxx03 > libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-ubsan >

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:40 AM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > Yes, I also find the amount of bot spam in #llvm is basically intolerable. > It makes it difficult to see actual people talking. At first, I just put > all the bots on /ignore. Now I have an xchat script to move the botspam to > another tab (tabify-004.pl). I'd recommend that the bots should

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

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

Most of the selections, like "console" for example, do not work when I click on them. On 03/27/2013 03:57 PM, Michael Gottesman wrote: > Hello LLVM Dev and Clang Dev! > > David Dean and I just finished bringing up a new build master on > lab.llvm.org <http://lab.llvm.org/>, llvmlab, which is located at the > url http://lab.llvm.org:8013

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 7 October 2015 at 23:20, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: >> For instance, a build that fails with a ninja error, will say so, same with a >> svn failure or a Jenkins exception. > > Will these get mailed to developers? Or admins? Unfortunately, Jenkins

On 7 October 2015 at 22:14, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > As a foreword: I haven't read a lot of the thread here and it's just a > single developer talking here :) I recommend you to, then. Most of your arguments are similar to David's and they don't take into account the difficulty in maintaining non-x86 buildbots. What you're both saying is

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > This is great news! Do we know who contributed the changes to cut the > extra library dependencies? > > Do you think we should remove ENABLE_OBJLIB to simplify our CMake files in > the near future? It seems to me that anyone who cares about highly parallel > build throughput can upgrade CMake to get

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

Hi all I wanted to do a quick build of a clean branch yesterday and noticed something surprising in the configure log: > -- No build type selected, default to Debug It appears that llvm's configuration forces Debug builds if the user does not specify the build type. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/9218ff50f93085d0a16a974db28ca8f14bc66f64/llvm/CMakeLists.txt#L57-L60

One strategy I use for our flaky bots is to have them email me only. If the failure is real, then I forward the email to who ever I find on the blame list. For a flaky build, this is least you can do. For our flaky builds I know how and why they are flaky, some person that gets email does not. This is also a great motivator to help me know what is wrong, and how to fix it. By default, all new

I think that was maybe the discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D78245 On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:22 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I have a vague memory that libcxx wanted it for something, and claimed it > would be hard to work around not having it. > > Anyone else remember that? I can’t dredge up the details, sorry… > > In any event, a separate

I'd be interested in seeing what you have planned upstreamed. I've used Jenkins on several projects. Will Zorg be a vehicle for transition, where buildbot slaves become Jenkins nodes defined in the project files? Do you see a majority of this this as a jenkins matrix project, or some other organization? Rick On 08/13/2014 05:09 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 12 Aug 2014, at

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 6/05/2016 - 6/11/2016. Thanks Galina buildername | was_red -----------------------------------------------------------+----------- sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap | 134:12:25 perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-parallel-fast | 46:29:26

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>