similar to: [LLVMdev] buildbot failure in LLVM on sanitizer-x86_64-linux

I'm sure it's obvious and I'm just blind, but I can't find the relevant part of that build that's showing a crash. Can you help me out? On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > +Sergey > > The bot failed on (and looks like it still fails even after LLVM r236877) > on AddressSanitizer-i386-linux ::

On 06/06/2014 02:33, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Alp, > > This warning should be fixed by r210301. However, consider > investigating why the frame size appears to be that large. I believe > we build this code with GCC as well and have seen no complaints > from its implementation of -Wframe-larger-than. CC'ing in llvmdev. Like Chandler said it could just be due to lack of

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

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL:

Why is there a public GN buildbot that sends emails and IRC notifications? That isn't what was agreed upon. Either un-GM it, or silence it. Roman. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:05 AM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: >

Hi, My New Year's resolution is to complain (constructively) whenever I get a spurious build failure email from a buildbot. For new or infrequent contributors especially, they can be extremely confusing and unnecessarily alarming. This one below is the first build ever attempted by the builder, so how on earth can it have come up with a meaningful blame list? And in any case, surely we

Alexey, I got mail from one of the tsan buildbots, claiming a breakage in tsan tests. But I cannot see anything on the logs it has for the build. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17916/steps/run%2064-bit%20tsan%20unit%20tests/logs/stdio Any ideas? Thanks. Diego. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed,

vitalybuka, sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn is _still_ on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console . Can we please get it removed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:07 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D63909 landed. Maybe it needs a master restart > to have an effect? > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:03 PM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi everyone, TL;DR I plan to do subj unless anyone objects. Autotools support for building sanitizers was never complete, is a proper subset of CMake capabilities, and the gap between the features of CMake build and autotools is quickly increasing: 1) OS: autotools support Linux, Mac OS X and Android; CMake also supports FreeBSD and Windows. 2) Architectures: autotools support i386 and x86_64,

Hi all, I have been experiencing the failure of the address sanitizer regression tests for a PPC64 target (Power7 machine). My understanding is that most of the failures are related with the fact the stack is not being dumped. I tried to understand what might be wrong and started by looking into the null_deref.cc test as it hangs during the test run. I observe that after the detection of the

Note that I've set the SA_NODEFER flag for the SEGV handler in the ASan runtime only a couple of days ago. Not sure that could've affected this test though; without that flag the second SEGV would've simply crashed the program. But you can try removing the flag from compiler-rt/trunk/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cc and see if that makes any difference. HTH, Alex On

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > It's a 20m timeout without output. > > If you back up to the build and look at the 'annotate' step output, > there's this text: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17916/steps/annotate/logs/stdio > > -- Testing: 258 tests, 16 threads -- >

Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12,

+dvyukov On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> It's a 20m timeout without output. >> >> If you back up to the build and look at the 'annotate' step output, >> there's this text: >> >>

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. > > The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:21 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> We have out-of-tree implementation of llvm-symbolizer-as-a-library,

Happened to me again: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/18273/steps/annotate/logs/stdio In fact, this whole bot has a 20% failure rate with the same failure mode, from looking at the history: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/?numbuilds=50 They all end with this: [100%] Running ThreadSanitizer tests -- Testing: 258 tests, 16 threads --

+llvm-commits (correct list) On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Could you describe the build failures you see after applying this patch? > I'll let Chris judge if adding -Wl,-syslibroot makes sense for iossim, or > that problem should be solved differently. > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Alex Wang via llvm-dev <

This morning I'm seeing 4 new sanitizer failures in SanitizerCommon-Unit (compared to a couple of days ago, when I didn't see these) - perhaps related to recent library refactoring? SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/DeadlockDetector.RemoveEdgesTest SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/SanitizerCommon.ThreadRegistryTest SanitizerCommon-Unit ::

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > We have out-of-tree implementation of llvm-symbolizer-as-a-library, and I > still hope to upstream it one day (unfortunately, its build process is > really complicated). > > Mike can probably comment on his plans for using symbolization in > coverage-related tools. > > On Wed, Oct 21,