similar to: [LLVMdev] Major ARM bots failure

r223478 seems to be responsible for PR21770: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21770 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if it helps but the clang builder for mips has been dying of > timeouts since > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-mips/builds/389 which only > has one commit in the blamelist

Hi, Anyone knows what's going on with SVN? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-selfhost http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-selfhost-neon http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15-full-sh etc. svn: E175012: Connection

Hi, many of the bots on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console don't do anything in their compile phase, even if they should. For example, these bots all don't do anything in their compile phase in any builds, even if they should: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/ http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux

Hi, It seems the problem is that the bot is updating llvm.src, but trying to build from llvm. Galina, it looks like this is related to your recent changes to zorg, you probably missed a spot somewhere and I can't find it on a first glance. Could you have a look? Thanks, Diana On 5 September 2016 at 12:01, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Thanks

Dear Renato, Are you still getting the error? I quick spot check on the server shows that most processes are idle and there's 0.5 GB of RAM left. Nothing is jumping out at me as clearly bad (though I am potentially overlooking something). Regards, John Criswell On 6/28/16 10:39 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > Anyone knows what's going on with SVN? > >

On 28 June 2016 at 15:49, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Renato, > > Are you still getting the error? I quick spot check on the server shows > that most processes are idle and there's 0.5 GB of RAM left. Nothing is > jumping out at me as clearly bad (though I am potentially overlooking > something). 51 minutes and counting to update clang...

Nope, no sanitizers. On 22 May 2017 at 11:38, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote: > Is that with -fsanitize=memory too? > > I'm currently building ToT with r303258 reverted. Once that's done I'll commit the revert and start investigating fixes. > >> On 22 May 2017, at 10:22, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: >>

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:51 AM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Could you give https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/99949/ a try? > It brings back the reverted commit and fixes two significant compile-time > issues. Assuming it works for you too, I'll finish off the patches and post > them individually. > > The first one

Hi Daniel, I did your experiment on a TK1 machine (same as the bots) and for r303258 I get: real 18m28.882s user 35m37.091s sys 0m44.726s and for r303259: real 50m52.048s user 88m25.473s sys 0m46.548s If I can help investigate, please let me know, otherwise we can just try your fixes and see how they affect compilation time. Thanks, Diana On 22 May 2017 at 10:49, Daniel

Hi, We've noticed that recently some of our bots (mostly clang-cmake-armv7-a15 and clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15) started timing out whenever someone commits a change to TableGen: r303418: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7268 r303346: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7242 r303341:

> On 19 May 2017, at 14:54, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > r303259 will have increased compile-time since it tripled the number of importable > SelectionDAG rules but a quick measurement building the affected file: > ninja lib/Target/<Target>/CMakeFiles/LLVM<Target>CodeGen.dir/<Target>InstructionSelector.cpp.o > for

It must be r303341, I commented on corresponding llvm-commits thread. On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Diana Picus via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ok, thanks. I'll try to do a bisect next week to see if I can find it. > > Cheers, > Diana > > On 19 May 2017 at 16:29, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> > wrote: > > >

I tried to land a small fix before going on vacation at the end of the year, but I had to revert it because it broke on a few of the build bots, specifically clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15, clang-cmake-armv7-a15, and llvm-hexagon-elf. https://reviews.llvm.org/D41264 It seemed to work as expected on the others. Unfortunately, the build logs don't give many clues. The fix included a new test, and

Hi Diana and Vitaly, Could you give https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/ <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/> a try? When measuring the compile of AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp.o with asan enabled and running under instruments's Allocation profiler, my machine reports that the cumulative memory allocations is down to ~3.5GB (was ~10GB), the number of

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>

Great! I expect I'll be able to cut it down further once I start fusing these smaller state-machines together. Before that, I'll re-order the patches that went into that diff so that I don't have to re-commit the regression before fixing it. > On 31 May 2017, at 13:48, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > This runs in: > real

Thanks for trying that patch. I agree that 34 mins still isn't good enough but we're heading in the right direction. Changing the partitioning predicate to the instruction opcode rather than the number of operands in the top-level instruction will hopefully cut it down further. I also have a patch that shaves a small amount off of the compile-time by replacing the various

Is https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/ replacement for r303341? If so LGTM. r303542 msan AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp: 1m17.209s r303542+diff/100829/ <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/> msan AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp: 1m24.724s On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote: > Great! I expect

On 1/4/2018 4:51 PM, Adrian McCarthy via llvm-dev wrote: > I tried to land a small fix before going on vacation at the end of the > year, but I had to revert it because it broke on a few of the build > bots, specifically clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15, clang-cmake-armv7-a15, and > llvm-hexagon-elf. > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D41264 I think you meant to put the test into

Folks, It seems we got the same issue with Clang alignment as before: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-selfhost/builds/3025 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-selfhost-neon/builds/485 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15-full-sh/builds/118 Commits between 231213 and 231255. There are a few issues that could have brought it: *