similar to: Can we remove llvmbb from IRC?

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> llvmbb's job is to inform people of build breaks. However, it seems to >> trigger for a big list of bots, and at least one of them seems to always be >>

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hi, many of the bots on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console don't do anything in their compile phase, even if they should. For example, these bots all don't do anything in their compile phase in any builds, even if they should: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/ http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux

Hi, It seems the problem is that the bot is updating llvm.src, but trying to build from llvm. Galina, it looks like this is related to your recent changes to zorg, you probably missed a spot somewhere and I can't find it on a first glance. Could you have a look? Thanks, Diana On 5 September 2016 at 12:01, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Thanks

Hi, as far as I can tell the only mac bot on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console is http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-darwin13/builds/37511 which only runs "check-lld". lld is probably the only tool in the LLVM / clang repos that's not widely used on macOS. What happened to the mac bots that run check-clang, check-clang-tools, check-clangd, check-llvm, and so on? Nico

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 7:23 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Apple moved all their bots to a Green Dragon CI system years ago: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ <http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/> > > (yeah, it'd be nice if the project wasn't split between two CI systems) If someone is really bored, it would be a cute project

I frequently see mention of how upgrading is problematic, is there anyone here for whom upgrading msvc versions is problematic? It seems like we keep talking in hypotheticals, but I'd like to hear from someone for whom it is *actually* a problem, and why. Vs community is permissive enough now that licensing isn't an issue. And every time this comes up it seems like we're saying

I don't see how the policy of supporting 2 versions is related to that difficulty though. Whether we support 1 versions or 2 versions, 1 version is still going to be deprecated every time a new version is released. So this burden on upgrading buildbots doesn't seem to be much different. As long as chromium compiler version is not tied to llvm compiler version (and if it did, that would be

As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing > 2013-related problems. We really appreciate it. > > > > Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the minimum MS > compiler to

I guess what I'm getting at, is why do we even need to support 2 toolchains with LLVM *at all*? Why can't we just always upgrade to the newest one unless there are serious issues with it? There used to be two reasons that I'm aware of: 1) Licensing. Community used to be Express, and Express used to be limited in functionality. But this is no longer the case. Community is fine for

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. > > Do you mind elaborating on those reasons? Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi Nico, >> >> Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce >> reports for llvm-undname starting today. >>

I'd like to revisit this. As a person who spends a fair amount of time monitoring our VS 2013 buildbots, I would say that I am ready to throw in the towel on MSVC 2013. Since this discussion, I have committed five (!) workarounds for MSVC 2013: # in llvm $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013 --after='Aug 4 2016' --oneline 21a8ade Fix the MSVC 2013 build by using Elf_Word instead of

Probably this job: lab.llvm.org:8080/green/job/clang-stage2-coverage-R/ 💬 from 📱 > On May 31, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Duncan Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > +Chris Matthews, do you know where the configs are stored for this? > >> On 2019 May 31, at 12:39, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Hey Nico, >> >> I'm

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:11 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce > reports for llvm-undname starting today. > Thanks! It looks like http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/index.html now has an "llvm-undname" entry, but

Hey Nico, I'm actually not sure where the configurations for that bot are stored. I suspect Duncan may have a better idea. I'm reasonably certain that the missing +x is just an oversight. -Chris > On May 30, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Vedant or Chris: Ping :) > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:56 AM Nico Weber

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

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 :) > ...

Hi Vedant and Chris, is the config for http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/index.html public somewhere? If so, where? (I looked in zorg but didn't find it.) If not, could you add "llvm-undname" to the list of binaries passed to llvm/utils/prepare-code-coverage-artifact.py so that llvm/lib/Demangle/MicrosoftDemangle.cpp (and friends) show up? (If the config is public,