similar to: [LLVMdev] clang-cmake-mips builder failure - please ignore it

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > I do. I'll take a look. > > Is there a way for owners to get emails for long-lasting failures? > I'm not sure what the generic setup is, but at least for the builder/slave I admin, it emails me on every failure. So I get a lot of mail, continuously, if there's a consistent

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

I've just noticed that this is a new test added in r248325 and has never passed on this builder. Added the author of the test (Evgeniy). From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev Sent: 01 October 2015 20:34 To: David Blaikie Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-cmake-mips > > I do. I'll take

Thanks. From the debugging I've done so far it looks like it could be another 32-bit big-endian specific bug. It seems to be segfaulting in the memset() in allocate_stack.c (from glib) because given stack pointer is null. I'm guessing this is because it read the wrong half of a 64-bit value somewhere but I haven't identified where it goes wrong. ________________________________________

Hi, I agree with the principle but 2 days feels a bit short to me since, accounting for time zone differences, it's closer to 1 working day. For example, an email sent at 9am PDT arrives at 5pm BST and (assuming normal working hours) might be read at 9am BST (1am PDT). Daylight savings can also make a difference since timezones that use it don't agree on when it's in effect. The owner

The failure is a bit odd. LLVM is ignoring $PWD because it doesn't have the same inode as '.'. This causes the test failure because DW_AT_comp_dir and $PWD differ. However, $PWD and '.' should be the same inode since $PWD is a symlink to the current directory and stat() looks through symlinks. > Since this latest board only has two cores, it will run slower and it will need

It could be. I am not sure what is running upstream of the affected machines though it is odd that only those using late releases of svn are affected. I did try using https for a by-hand checkout and that worked but I don't know how to change the buildbots to use https instead of http. I sent a note off to the person who runs the buildbot master. On 01/26/2018 02:22 PM, Don Hinton

On 14 November 2013 17:43, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Renato, thanks for your elaborate walk-through of the issues with ARM > boards. I'm trying to add some of this to the "How to Build on ARM" > document and will submit a patch later on. > Nice, thanks! That would be great! Unfortunately, my personal budget does not allow me more than a

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 19 December 2014 at 17:29, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> > wrote: > > My understanding was the other way around. The tests timeout but they > shouldn't. However, re-reading the original email I see that my mind > inserted a word that isn't there. >

Hi Bill, I believe you just need to update the urls in the various .py files at http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/ <http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/>. After that, the buildmaster will need restarting. Hopefully all the bots support https, but it can be made optional if that's not the case. > On 26 Jan 2018, at

On 04/08/2014 16:20, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I >>>> commit >>>> it? >>> >>> I am afraid not. >>> >> >> But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test

Hello, For a simple function taking a short and returning a short, clang generates IR with this function signature: define signext i16 @foo(i16 signext %x) Some questions please: 1) For the input parameter and return value, does the target control whether clang uses signext vs something else? If so, how does this target query work? 2) Does the presence of the signext mean it's imperative

My understanding was the other way around. The tests timeout but they shouldn't. However, re-reading the original email I see that my mind inserted a word that isn't there. Renato, just to double check: Is it failing _due_ to timeout? Or failing to timeout? > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Author: dsanders > Date: Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > New Revision: 239035 > > Include BPF target in CMake builds. > > Modified: > llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt > > --- llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt (original) > +++ llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > @@

On 08/26/2015 09:46 AM, Philip Reames wrote: > On 08/26/2015 09:41 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin >> <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com >> <mailto:dblaikie at

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

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

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 ===================================================================

On 3 January 2013 21:29, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Fair enough - you could write up a patch for the zorg repository to do > this. > Wouldn't requiring every buildbot to use LNT achieve the same thing? --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

在 2017年04月26日 16:51, Simon Dardis 写道: > Hi Leslie, > > I've been seeing those failures as well (I own those buildbots). Like yourself, I'm a bit > uncertain as to why they're occurring. I'm currently investigating. I suspect it's a case > that the build directory has gone stale. Perhaps! and buildbots cover how many LLVM Backend targets? thanks! > >