similar to: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9

On 08/26/2015 04:12 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:07, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: >> I see frequent timeouts on this bot -- can the timeout be increased? > > Hi Davide, > > Increasing the timeout is not ideal. We need to fix the problem in a > different way. > > Our other ARM bots are using CMake 3.2 + Ninja

On 04/01/2014 15:19, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 while building cfe. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/14552 > > Buildbot URL: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > > Buildslave for this Build: as-bldslv1 > > Build

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:27, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > @Galina: It seems this bot is now almost permanently running into a > > compile-time > > timeout. Maybe you can fix this by either increasing the timeout or by > > switching to a

On 08/26/2015 09:38 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:30, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> To say this differently, we will revert a *change* which is problematic. >> Why shouldn't we "revert" a bot? > I don't disagree, just don't want to do that lightly. Most certainly > not before we have comments from the bot

@Galina: It seems this bot is now almost permanently running into a compile-time timeout. Maybe you can fix this by either increasing the timeout or by switching to a cmake/ninja based build as suggested by Renato. On 08/26/2015 05:21 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind

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

On 26 August 2015 at 17:32, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Small blame lists can still be acquired by having more hardware. Certainly > not always possible/in the budget for those who want to verify these things. More unstable hardware is more unstable. :) cheers, --renato

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

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are under discussion, > but > > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more "revert to > green" > > feel to them just

On 26 August 2015 at 17:21, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > (oh, and add long cycle times to the list of issues - people do have a > tendency to ignore bots that come back with giant blame lists & no obvious > determination as to who's patch caused the problem, if any) Yes, but remember, not all hardware is as fast as a multi-core Xeon server. Build times

On 08/26/2015 09:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:43, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> Why? This is not our policy for commits; why should it be different for >> bots? Comments within a reasonable time window (2 hours?) sure, but an >> unresponsive owner can simply re-enable when they get around to it. Just >> like the

On 08/26/2015 08:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge >> and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems >> OK. > It's not my bot. All my bots are CMake+Ninja based and are stable enough.

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

> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge >> and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems >> OK. > > It's not my bot.

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

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

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 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

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

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