similar to: clang.exp/gn

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux/builds/37730/ is an example of the ICE when D64146/rL370584 landed. On 01/09/2019 02:23, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > >> On Aug 31, 2019, at 15:14, Nandor Licker via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hello PowerPC fans, >> >> I am attempting to land D64146 and the PowerPC

Hello PowerPC fans, I am attempting to land D64146 and the PowerPC bots crash with an internal compiler error. Can anyone help me to reproduce the crash or obtain a stack trace somehow? The issue seems to be related to my diff, however the crash does not occur while compiling one of the files I changed. Thank you, Nandor Licker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

-- The C compiler identification is GNU 7.3.1 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 7.3.1 According to buildbot log here http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux/builds/37730/steps/cmake%20stage%201/logs/stdio for Simon's example ICE. Best, Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD. XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com From: "Finkel, Hal J. via

Hi Nicholas, The admin of the buildbot is aware of this, will handle it after long weekend. Thanks. Best, Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD. XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> To: Jinsong Ji <jji at us.ibm.com>, "Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org"

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <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: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL:

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 :) > ...

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: >

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

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

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

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 Wynand, My big concern is related to what Mehdi mentioned as #4. Bazel doesn't really handle the configuration-management that CMake does, so adding Bazel support would really mean supporting an extra build system with no path for it to replace CMake. We're kinda already in that situation with gn, but gn is a developer productivity tool and we don't consider changes that break gn

Thanks for the info Rui. Transitioning from llvm 5.0 to llvm 7.0 will take some time due to the nature/process of the production environment. Is it ok to use lld 7.0 with llvm 5.0? On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:47 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Looks like Ubuntu 12 was released in 2012, and the most recent version of > LLVM is LLVM 8.0.0. > > LLVM 5.0 is pretty old,

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

gReetings: I apologize for the non-programming language. I found what seems to be a strange behavior of plot(). The code follows: #_____________________________ N=3030; gn=.04; tn=1:100 n=N/(1+(N-1)*exp(-gn*tn)) N=n*(1-exp(-gn*tn))/(1-n*exp(-gn*tn)) plot(N) #strange plot N N=rep(3030, 100) plot(N) #behaves as expected ________________________________ Windows XP, R 2.4.0. or 2.4.1 Thanks,

Hi, I need to get an overview over the memory/speed requirements for speex. We want to investigate whether we can implement on a target processor with limited resources. The target processor is a 16 bit fixed pint DSP with a single ALU and MAC. It runs at 60 MHz and has a total of 16 Kbytes RAM from which other processing also will eat. What we would like to implement is a speex encoder and

Hi, I am trying to convert the following NLMIXED code to NLME, but am running into problems concerning 'Singularity in backsolve'. As I am new to R/S-Plus, I thought I may be missing something in the NLME code. NLMIXED *********** proc nlmixed data=kidney.kidney; parms delta=0.03 gamma=1.1 b1=-0.003 b2=-1.2 b3=0.09 b4=0.35 b5=-1.43 varu=0.5; eta=b1*age+b2*sex+b3*gn+b4*an+b5*pkn+u;