similar to: buildbot failure in LLVM on sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn

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: >

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: >

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:37 AM Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I have no idea how. > Are there particular problems? Now it should be quite. > Console has a bunch of stale builders which are even less useful. > LLVM has a silent build master that does not send email. When Nico added the gn build, apparently we promised not to set up builders

Any easy way to do this as some kind of overlay, so they GN files wouldn't live in the LLVM repository, but in a separate one? (this might avoid some of the community discussion - though would perhaps still likely have the issue I see as most significant: With a sufficient number of developers using GN, the rate of build breaks due to those developers missing CMake file updates might rise to

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:22 AM Vedant Kumar via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now. >> I'm not, I just put up with it :) > ...

Hello, I was wondering who owns the clang.exp bots which builds llvm using gn? I need to add another generator to clang-tablegen, but the build seems to be failing: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/4816 I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the problem. Thank you, Nandor Licker

Awesome. I'm happy with moving the .rst file into that directory and not have it on the public website. I'll try to make a patch that lands enough scaffolding to build `not` in the next few days, and then I'll land the other build files I have through the regular build process after that. Unless someone feels strongly, I'll go with Justin's suggestion of llvm/utils/gn/... On

The value in having them somewhere in-tree is that it's easier for people collaborate on these files, and it's way lower setup overhead if someone wants to try it out. If people prefer llvm/util over llvm/experimental, that's fine with me. There would only be a single directory that will contain build files for all of llvm, clang, lld, etc. The build files would be in

If I read this correctly, there isn't much opposition to landing the gn files as long as it's very clear that regular devs aren't supposed to update them and that it's clear that they're experimental The main concerns I've heard so far: - Having two build systems is confusing. I can see this, but I think putting the gn files below llvm/experimental/gn (instead of right

David, Dean, all, The bots got red today with assertion failures in llvm::DbgVariable::addMMIEntry: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/1816/steps/check-msan%20in%20gcc%20build/logs/stdio I did not find the offender yet. Any ideas? clang-5.0: /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot1/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.h:131: void

Thanks! On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I give it 99% odds it was r302483. Let's revert and debug it tomorrow. > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> David, Dean, all, >> >> The bots got red today with assertion failures in >>

Hey Alexey, This bot has been failing for a week, by the looks of it - what's the deal? On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:31 PM, <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux > while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17810 >

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 ::

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,

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 -- >

+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: >> >>

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 --

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

Dear people, I'm trying to do some analysis of a data using the models by Royle & Donazio in their fantastic book, particular the following function: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/pubanalysis/roylebook/panel4pt1.fn that applied to my data and in the console is as follows: > `desman.y` <- structure(c(3L,4L,3L,2L,1L), .Names = c("1", "2", "3",

Hi All, This test is on a ubuntu 12 box. Can anyone please point me what revision/commit-id of lld fixed this issue which was atleast in llvm 5.0. . ├── build.sh ├── main.c ├── shared │ └── sh.c └── static └── st.c [[ build.sh ]] #!/bin/sh CC="${TOOLCHAIN}/bin/clang" AR="${TOOLCHAIN}/bin/llvm-ar" CFLAGS="-g -O" LDFLAGS="-fuse-ld=lld" rm