similar to: Fwd: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-cmake-aarch64-full

This builder is taking too long to build. (The build stops because of a timeout.) Chip On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-amd64-openbsd while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-amd64-openbsd/builds/1103 > > Buildbot URL:

Hi everyone, I am working with Alexei Starovoitov to contribute an LLVM buildbot for the experimental BPF backend. I am following the steps at [1] to setup a buildbot and I was mostly successful: I was able to setup a slave and a temporary master to check its base config. Now I'm not sure about the next step: patching the "slaves.py" and "builders.py" files in zorg. * Is

Hi, Alexei On 2015/7/30 1:13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 7/29/15 2:38 AM, He Kuang wrote: >> Hi, Alexei >> >> On 2015/7/28 10:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On 7/25/15 3:04 AM, He Kuang wrote: >>>> I noticed that for 64-bit elf format, the reloc sections have >>>> 'Addend' in the entry, but there's no 'Addend' info

Hi Alexei, I haven't tried to run code yet. The clang frontend can generate machine code for bpf but llc does not do the job. When i use : llc -march bpf -filetype=obj arith.bc It has this error message: Assertion failed: (isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() argument of incompatible type!"), function cast, file

Thanks for the detailed info! The problem was that I tried without assertions and didn't inspect the IR closely as it contained this, for now, illegal instruction: %6 = bitcast i8* %5 to i8 addrspace(1)* This is clearly a clang error. I suggest opening a bug report, or sending the reproducer to cfe-dev at llvm.lists.org so someone will take a look that has more clang experience. @Matt Do

Guys, you can exclude me (dyatkovskiy) from this list, since I reverted my changes in r162354. -Stepan. llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-native-mingw64-win7 while building cfe. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-mingw64-win7/builds/876 > > Buildbot URL:

Thank you. Alexei just committed the change to SVN. Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies, logical fallacies and repetitions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > LGTM. > Please commit. > > Thanks > > Galina > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:32 PM,

Hello Marco, Welcome aboard! slaves.py keeps the build slaves definitions, builders.py keeps the builders definitions. You have to have both. The steps of adding a new slave is here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html. Please make sure you done the step # 10 before bringing your slave up, otherwise it wouldn't be authorized by the master and will be blacklisted after multiple

Galina, thanks again for your help. I have cooked a new patch that should make a bit more sense. I have added the new builder under _get_experimental_scheduled_builders(), as the comment above that function suggested me it would be a good idea. :) Does it look a reasonable start? Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies,

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

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

I forgot the -DADD flag earlier but the result did not change: https://godbolt.org/z/NPcn22 ________________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 20:18 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List; Y Song Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:07:40PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:48 PM, John Fastabend > <john.fastabend at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is a concern on my side. I want XDP and Linux stack to work > > reasonably well together. > > btw the micro benchmarks showed that page per packet approach > that xdp took in mlx4 should be

Send again since llvmdev is moved to llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org On 2015/8/5 9:58, Wangnan (F) wrote: > > > On 2015/8/4 17:01, Wangnan (F) wrote: >> For people who in llvmdev: >> >> This mail is belong to a thread in linux kernel mailing list, the >> first message >> can be retrived from: >> >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/55B1535E.8090406 at

How are you modeling weak aliases in Atoms? mach-o does not support weak aliases. My mental model of a weak alias is: If foo is a weak alias for bar, then if nothing else defines bar, use foo in place of bar. -Nick On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > So I just got lua to link and run and work on x86-64 Linux with musl > and lld. It did require one change to hack

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev >> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >>> elfutils, and binutils. >> >> great! >> Can

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Jakub Kicinski via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:03:47 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> On 9/22/17 9:24 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:56:55 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote:

Pulling header files directly out of the kernel sources for inclusion in userspace programs is highly error prone, not least because it bypasses the kbuild infrastructure entirely and so may end up referencing other header files that have not been generated. Subsequent patches will cause compiler.h to pull in the ungenerated asm/rwonce.h file via filter.h, breaking the build for tools/bpf: | $

Pulling header files directly out of the kernel sources for inclusion in userspace programs is highly error prone, not least because it bypasses the kbuild infrastructure entirely and so may end up referencing other header files that have not been generated. Subsequent patches will cause compiler.h to pull in the ungenerated asm/rwonce.h file via filter.h, breaking the build for tools/bpf: | $

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void