(I'm not sure it
will work even if we do that).
We (Linaro) will correct the configuration of this bot, one way or another,
so that this does not happen again.
Please continue to report problems in the future, it really does help us
out.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 at 10:16,
nux too, I don't see where we disable it at
least.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 at 00:08, Cameron McInally
wrote:
> Hi Linaro folks,
>
> It appears my latest commit has broken your BuildBot:
>
> fatal error: file
>
> 'C:\Users\tcwg\llvm-worker\flang-arm
Took a lot more than my estimate, apologies for that. The workers are now
all running 19.1.7.
In future we will try to update as soon as llvm releases come out, but you
can always remind us as you have done here.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 at 18:01, Mark de Wever wrote:
>
Hi Mark,
Yes, we will update to clang 19. It may be a couple of days because we need
to make sure there are no regressions in the rest of our bots due to the
update.
We will let you know via email and on the PR when it has been done.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 at 19:13, Mark
e are working on some changes to address the problem,
in the way that Galina has suggested by merging more build requests if we
know the builder is always clean.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 13:44, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> Hello! It seems one of the Linaro bots has been down for
We saw problems with this on the bots, and
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/50a02e7c68f964c5d8338369746c849ed8d3bef4
fixed the issue there.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
To unsubscribe send an email to l
erbose output into the
> buildbot config so we might know more about how this happens next time?
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 1:31 AM David Spickett
> wrote:
>
>> > The other 1 commit build is
>> https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/4/builds/940, I will ask the
>
not.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 16:36, David Spickett
wrote:
> I've looked at the build status reporter, which I think is
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/blob/ec94a29bfb0c247f0123c4efaf080a9b215d4433/zorg/buildbot/reporters/utils.py#L206.
> I don't see anything wrong with that
/builders/4/builds/940, I will ask the
author if they received anything. Though even if they did I'm not sure what
we could conclude from that.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 02:12, David Blaikie wrote:
> Any update on this?
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1:28 AM David Spickett
> wrote:
&g
It is a single commit blame list, and I know we started posting results to
GitHub in these cases. Presumably those have to also be green -> red
transitions, but perhaps something slipped through here and because there
was no PR to associate this change with, it sent an email instead?
Thanks,
David
sponses!
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 5:03 AM Omair Javaid
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 at 14:56, David Spickett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is one for @Omair Javaid who is on bots
>>> this week.
>>>
>>> But to save him some confusion,
This is one for @Omair Javaid who is on bots this
week.
But to save him some confusion, I noticed that the next build
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/122/builds/151 passes. This is
because
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/038bc1c18c786e14cc306401b00144265f8860f5
required lld w
Thanks for the report, this is the fallout from some refactoring I did and
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/commit/785839e8d77ca09b4cc415eae1c62c0a1ed8da37
fixes that. It only just got included.
So we're back online with a single test failure that I'll be looking into
shortly.
On Fri, 23 Feb 202
r channels,
but in my absence anyone else on the team should be able to help too.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 08:55, Mark de Wever wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in [1] I just committed [2] to update the minimum CMake
> version in LLVM to 3.20.0. Unfortunately it
It's caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/D155350 and
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155626 is confirmed to fix it.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 15:32, Carlos Seo wrote:
> Looks like a SVE-related failure to me. I'm trying to figure out which
> patch introduced this.
>
> On Wed, 19 Ju
clang: ../llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp:1946: SDValue
llvm::SelectionDAG::getVScale(const SDLoc &, EVT, APInt, bool): Assertion
`MulImm.getSignificantBits() <= VT.getSizeInBits() && "Immediate does not
fit VT"' failed.
PLEASE submit a bug report to https://github.com/llvm/llvm
,
David Spickett.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 04:43, Galina Kistanova wrote:
>
> Hello Linaro Toolchain Working Group,
>
> clang-arm64-windows-msvc is red for 12 days. The host is missing a correct
> version of msvc.
>
> Is somebody looking at this?
;
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 3:39 PM David Spickett
> wrote:
>>
>> > OK! But how is testing flang in stage2 helpful for this? This is just
>> > testing that clang from stage-1 is properly functioning right? The
>> > test-suite is there for this I th
h invokes
ccache then stage 2 has the compilers set directly to the clang
executable built in stage 1.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 12:28, Mehdi AMINI wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:18 PM David Spickett
> wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't know this builder would te
> I didn't know this builder would test flang as well: which stage of the build
> is doing so?
It tests it only for stage 2, and the 1 stage bot checks stage 1. So
we do have some of that focus you talked about between
clang-aarch64-sve-vla (which is the 1 stage) and
clang-aarch64-sve-vla-2stage.
Hi Galina, apologies, we've been distracted with other issues.
I am looking into it now.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:20, Galina Kistanova wrote:
>
> Hello Linaro Toolchain Working Group,
>
> linaro-clang-armv8-lld-2stage <https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/
> There was a big impact on the flang builds on tcwg-jade-01 (which went from
> 1h–2h to 10min–30min), but not on other builds.
Given how much resource flang takes up this is a great result even if
they're the only faster builds.
> Since different machines have different disk sizes and free spac
)
which is the one we'd expect.
Do you have one of the notifications, what is the to/from set to?
Maybe I can figure it out from the form of the mail. (the bot should
not be sending any more either way)
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 10:23, Florian Hahn wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jul
Hi Florian, thanks for the heads up. We moved this to a silent bot due
to hardware issues but didn't realise that the original hardware had
come back online. This should be fixed now.
I will find out how to change the notification settings for the
non-silent bot config.
Thanks,
David Spi
th
perfect caching. Are there any other bots you were interested in? We
can check those too.
What build times were you expecting to see? It is useful for us to
know what expectations are even if, unfortunately, we don't meet them
at this time.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022
Hi Galina, yes it is being investigated.
The switch to opaque pointers is the cause and I'll be working on the
issue this week.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 04:51, Galina Kistanova wrote:
>
> Hello Linaro Toolchain Working Group.
>
> clang-aarch64-sve-vls-2sta
ll green on our bots. Thanks for following up and
we'll root out what's causing the flaky tests.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:39, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> Seems like my change to make Clang default to DWARFv5 might've caused a
> buildbot failure on yo
Hi Galina,
I've moved clang-thumbv7-full-2stage and clang-armv7-vfp3-full-2stage
to the staging area. We'll move them back once we find sufficient
resources to keep up with the changes.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 05:36, Galina Kistanova wrote:
>
> Dear
Hi Lang, clearly your change is not the cause here so please ignore this.
We will investigate what the actual cause of the slowdown was.
Thanks,
David Spickett.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 07:59, wrote:
>
> After llvm commit adf55ac6657693f7bfbe3087b599b4031a765a44
> Author: L
I think this is a false positive/one off disturbance in the
benchmarking. Based on the contents of the saved temps.
FastFullPelBlockMotionSearch has not changed at all. (so unless perf
is saying time spent in that function and its callees went up, it must
be something other than code change)
perl
bot, which is why you saw the same thing in
many places. You could argue that we should clean test folders to
prevent this but you can also argue that doing so just pushes the
failure onto local developers who will not be cleaning their build
folders every time they do check-all.
Thanks,
David
The majority of the bots are now back up, e.g
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/189
Note that the names have changed around, let us know if something is
still missing.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 17:15, David Spickett wrote:
>
> It's the end of my work day here but there's a
It's the end of my work day here but there's a chance I can fix this
shortly. I will reply here again once I know for sure, if not, someone
else will take over.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 17:07, Andrzej Warzynski
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just noticed that all of Flang's buildbot workers managed by Lin
Closing the loop on this, all the Arm bots are now running in
pre-commit CI. I have moved over all the existing configs,
exceptions/no-exceptions for Armv7/Armv8/AArch64.
I didn't see a bot owner field so for the time being if you have
issues with them you can email linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.o
34 matches
Mail list logo
