similar to: [LLVMdev] Running a Local Buildbot

Hello We are migrating from 2.9 to 3.2 Here is some code that does not compile any more llvm::PassManager *pm; llvm::FunctionPassManager *fpm; module = llvm::ParseBitcodeFile(mb,context,&err_str); if (!module) { error() <<"Failed to load module from bitcode file: " <<err_str <<endl; exit(1); } pm = new PassManager();

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > We're thinking about running our own buildbot against the upstream llvm > and clang sources. I'm talking to our build folks and seeing what they > can allow. Maybe we can contribute some build slaves to the osuosl > buildbot but I'm not sure. > > If we do end up having to run our own buildbot,

On 3 January 2013 21:29, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Fair enough - you could write up a patch for the zorg repository to do > this. > Wouldn't requiring every buildbot to use LNT achieve the same thing? --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 04/08/2014 16:20, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I >>>> commit >>>> it? >>> >>> I am afraid not. >>> >> >> But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test

On 3 January 2013 21:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > That's how you achieve this goal. What a buildbot does is governed by > the configuration in the zorg repository (that's where we keep the > buildbot configuration code that is sync'd up to the lab.llvm.org > buildmaster). > Hi David, I had a go at Zorg after the website was back online. As

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 January 2013 21:29, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Fair enough - you could write up a patch for the zorg repository to do >> this. > > > Wouldn't requiring every buildbot to use LNT achieve the same thing? That's how you achieve this goal.

> > Second, is there a simple way to test the builder and config before I commit > > it? > > I am afraid not. > But there is a ugly (and certainly not simple) way to partially test the builder that I mentioned recently [1]. I say partially because I ended up removing all the builders apart from my own. @Dmitri - Has anyone considered reorganising zorg so it is easier to

Hi All, Recent conversations [1][2] would suggest we need to rethink zorg or at the very least improve the documentation. I've CC'ed Daniel Dunbar, Galina Kistanova and Duncan Sands because it seemed that they have contributed the most code to Zorg Organisation ========= The current organisation of the Zorg repository doesn't make a huge amount of sense from my perspective. There

On 14 November 2013 17:43, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Renato, thanks for your elaborate walk-through of the issues with ARM > boards. I'm trying to add some of this to the "How to Build on ARM" > document and will submit a patch later on. > Nice, thanks! That would be great! Unfortunately, my personal budget does not allow me more than a

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

Hello everyone, It might make sense to start from rebooting the buildmaster, just to make sure everything is all right on this end. Yesterday I have tried to apply the latest changes from zorg and some of them are broken. Theoretically, checkconfig shouldn't affect the working instance, but the reality could be different... I planned to rollback to the last known-to-be-good revision and

It could be. I am not sure what is running upstream of the affected machines though it is odd that only those using late releases of svn are affected. I did try using https for a by-hand checkout and that worked but I don't know how to change the buildbots to use https instead of http. I sent a note off to the person who runs the buildbot master. On 01/26/2018 02:22 PM, Don Hinton

On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Nyx wrote: > > Is there a webpage documenting these function passes? Here's some: http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#FunctionPass You can also look in llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar for runOnFunction () > Which ones should I run > to maximize performance? There's no right way to determine this. It depends on what you need/ want from your

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

Hello everyone, LLVM buildmaster will be restarted today after 6 PM Pacific time today. Thanks Galina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141126/2d94025c/attachment.html>

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

Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string

The problem remains after the buildmaster restart. Thanks Galina -----Original Message----- From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:42 AM To: Galina Kistanova Cc: Duncan Sands; llvm-lab-wg at lists.minormatter.com; Galina Kistanova; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [llvm-lab-wg] FNT testers reporting success even though they failed On Tue,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > It might make sense to start from rebooting the buildmaster, just to make sure everything is all right on this end. > Yesterday I have tried to apply the latest changes from zorg and some of them are broken. > Theoretically, checkconfig shouldn't affect the

Hi James/Chris, You guys have done this before, so I'm guessing you can help me understand what's going on. If my buildbot config is: jobs=2, nt_flags=['--cflag', '-mcpu=cortex-a15', '--use-perf', '--threads=1', '--build-threads=4'] It uses -j4 for build, -j2 for running the tests: