similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?

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

On 05/19/2015 10:40 AM, James Y Knight 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 > <http://tabify-004.pl/>). I'd recommend that the bots should just

On 05/20/2015 11:04 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 20 May 2015 at 18:47, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> One particular irritant is getting emails 12-24 hours later about someone else's >> breakage that has *already been fixed*. The long cycling bots are really >> irritating in that respect. > That's not that easy to fix, and I think

This bot seems kind of flaky. In the last 100 builds, it has failed "gdb-75-check" 22 times with what is either a linker error or a missing header (or both?): gdb compile failed, /usr/bin/ld: error: /home/buildslave/osuosl_slave/clang-x86_64-ubuntu-gdb-75/clang-tests/build/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/pendshr1.c.o: requires dynamic R_X86_64_PC32 reloc against 'pendfunc1' which

On 7 October 2015 at 15:39, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > But since nobody actually seemed interested in fixing it, I didn't keep making noise about it. I basically just ignore the failure notices from buildbot, because every commit seems to trigger multiple bogus failure notices, no matter what. That's not true, either. We (buildbot owners and admins) are

Folks, David has been particularly militant with broken buildbots recently, so to make sure we don't throw the baby with the bath water, I'd like to propose some changes on how we deal with the emails on our *current* buildmaster, since there's no concrete plans to move it to anything else at the moment. The main issue is that managing the buildbots is not a simple task. It requires

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 --

+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 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

This just failed again: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/1579 Bill, could you take a look at this? This is like the 3rd time I've been incorrectly pinged by this buildbot due to this issue. -- Sean Silva On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for taking a look. The flaky ASan test failure in the

Hi David, I think we're repeating ourselves here, so I'll reduce to the bare minimum before replying. On 6 October 2015 at 21:40, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > When I suggest someone disable notifications from a bot it's because those > notifications aren't actionable to those receiving them. This is a very limited view of the utility of buildbots.

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

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 >

I threw all the sanitizers I had access to on this test and didn't find anything. The merging uses threads so I can't rule out nondeterminism. It's strange that it only happens on ppc64le and only on stage 2, so an actual miscompile wouldn't surprise me either. On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Also, `Clang Tools ::

It looks like all sanitizer builder are still offline http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 00:34, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits < cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The staging buildbot was up and running for 6 days now, and looks good. > > Tomorrow at 12:00 PM PDT we will switch the production buildbot to the new >

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>

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 -- >

On 9 October 2015 at 19:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Where "software" here is presumably the OS software Yes. This is the real noise, one that we cannot accept. > I think that misses the common usage of the term "flaky test" (or do the > tests themselves end up other (1) or (2)?) or flaky tests due to flaky > product code (hash

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:04 AM, <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/29883 > > Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: as-bldslv2

On 08/26/2015 04:38 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:32, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What's the problem with increasing the timeout? Asking people to ignore >> buildbot mails does not seem right. If the buildbot is flaky I believe >> the buildbot owner should ensure it shuts up until the problems have >> been