similar to: Buildbot blame emails broken?

Hi, I've had this problem on a compiler-rt change too. It was on the clang-cmake-mips builder earlier this week. ________________________________________ From: llvm-dev [llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Renato Golin via llvm-dev [llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org] Sent: 30 October 2015 08:34 To: Bill Seurer Cc: LLVM Dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Revisions that cause buildbot problems

Hi Galina, The failing build was http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-mips/builds/10220 and the commit that caused it was 'r251331 [compiler-rt] Fix ptrace interceptor for aarch64'. ________________________________ From: Galina Kistanova [gkistanova at gmail.com] Sent: 02 November 2015 16:03 To: Daniel Sanders Cc: Renato Golin; Bill Seurer; LLVM Dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

I've investigated several failures that my buildbots detected but when I figured out which revisions caused the failures they weren't on any blame lists. Thus the developer has no clue they broke anything until I contact them. It appears this happens when (for instance) one of the test cases in projects/test-suite is updated and causes a failure. Such a revision also won't kick

Is the plan for LLDB to just adapt the code that is trying to follow the new code style or also the code using the LLDB code style? I’m in general in favor of moving LLDB to the LLVM code style because it makes the LLDB code that interfaces with Clang/LLVM less awkward to write (e.g. no more code style confusion when inheriting from a Clang classes inside the LLDB code base). But I think if we do

Hello everyone, We have a number of issues with the current buildbot infrastructure. During this week I will be addressing 2 which I think are most important. 1. There is no well specified dependencies, so all builders get triggered by any change in any of watched projects. I.e. lldb change triggers clang build and versa versa. 2. If a project depends on multiple others, sequential changes could

Hello everyone, The buildbot upgrade is entering the phase when the results to become visible. No change is required at this time on any of the builders. The bot owners could upgrade the buildbot on build computers later, at their convenience, as this is not on the critical path. We are going to upgrade the staging bot first. Then, once that is stable and all detected issues are resolved, we

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 >

This has been going on since at least Friday too. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:45 AM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:18 PM Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> phabricator seems to have stopped sending emails. All other functionality >> is ok, it just does not

Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at our end? http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang -Andrzej On 08/10/2020 00:31, Galina Kistanova via cfe-dev wrote: > They are online now -

Hi all, phabricator seems to have stopped sending emails. All other functionality is ok, it just does not send email notifications of any actions. Does anyone know what's the problem? cheers, pavel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170410/8ce9ec7c/attachment.html>

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

Hi Galina, How can I set a builder to "batch mode"? I could not find any documentation or examples for that... Best, Christian On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:33 AM Christian Kühnel <kuhnel at google.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > happy to set it to batch mode, if someone tells me where to configure it :) > > Otherwise we could also upgrade the machine from 16 to 32

Hi Paula, This error is fine. The buildbot has tested the worker version. 0.8.x apparently does not have that method. The error gets handled gracefully on the server side. At least it seems so so far. That should not prevent your bot from connecting. Thanks Galina On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:11 PM Paula Askar <paulatoth at google.com> wrote: > Hey Andrzej, > > What are you seeing

Hi Galina, It seems that all the bots (buildbots and green dragon) are not processing new SVN revisions since the llvm.org IP address update. It seems we have gotten no new revs since Noon today? Perhaps the SVN mirror is not picking up new commits?

Hi, Do we have any build bots for the currently minimum required version of GCC? I'm currently seeing a build failure locally using v4.8.4, due to a compiler bug fixed in 4.9 (see GCC bug id 57824), coming from OptionalTest.cpp, relating to raw string literals in macros not being able to encompass multiple lines. The change in question (r351548) was introduced 3 days ago, and as far as I can

> 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 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 19:26, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:24 AM Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 17:58, Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 14, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at

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

oh, awesome. Were you using type units? (I imagine that'd make the situation worse - since the way clang emits DWARF for a type with a member function template implicit specialization is to emit the type unit without any mention of this, and to emit the implicit specialization declaration into the stub type in the CU (that references the type unit)) Without type units I'd be pretty

On 28/01/2020 20:37, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > and one idea I had was to have the DWARFDataExtractor return a new > DWARFDataExtractor that was specifically bounded to the parsed length > for this reason. I think this would be great. In fact, I was getting ready to propose something like that myself. :) FWIW, lldb DataExtractors already support this kind of slicing. pl