Can you try again after taking my change at r255584?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm having some of these blow up. > > In the case of test/lang/c/typedef/Testtypedef.py, it looks like some of the > @expected decorators were changed a bit, and perhaps they are not pound for > pound the same. For example, this test used to really be marked XFAIL (via > an expectedFailureClang directive), but it looks like the current marking of > compiler="clang" is either not right or not working, since the test is run > on OS X and is treated like it is expected to pass. > > I'm drilling into that a bit more, that's just the first of several that > fail with these changes on OS X. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >> >> I've checked in r255567 which fixes a problem pointed out by Siva. It >> doesn't sound related to in 255542, but looking at those logs I can't really >> tell how my CL would be related. If r255567 doesn't fix the bots, would >> someone mind helping me briefly? r255542 seems pretty straightforward, so I >> don't see why it would have an effect here. >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ah yes I see. Thanks, Ying (and Siva! Saw your comments too). >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ying Chen <chy...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Seems this is the first build that fails, and it only has one CL 255542. >>>> >>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/9446 >>>> I believe Zachary is looking at that problem. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am seeing several failures on the Ubuntu 14.04 testbot, but >>>>> unfortunately there are a number of changes that went in at the same time >>>>> on >>>>> that build. The failures I'm seeing are not appearing at all related to >>>>> the >>>>> test running infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> Anybody with a fast Linux system able to take a look to see what >>>>> exactly is failing there? >>>>> >>>>> -Todd >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just put in the single-worker, low-load, follow-up test run pass in >>>>>> r255543. Most of the work for it went in late last week, this just >>>>>> mostly >>>>>> flips it on. >>>>>> >>>>>> The feature works like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> * First test phase works as before: run all tests using whatever level >>>>>> of concurrency is normally used. (e.g. 8 works on an 8-logical-core >>>>>> box). >>>>>> >>>>>> * Any timeouts, failures, errors, or anything else that would have >>>>>> caused a test failure is eligible for rerun if either (1) it was marked >>>>>> as a >>>>>> flakey test via the flakey decorator, or (2) if the --rerun-all-issues >>>>>> command line flag is provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> * After the first test phase, if there are any tests that met rerun >>>>>> eligibility that would have caused a test failure, those get run using a >>>>>> serial test phase. Their results will overwrite (i.e. replace) the >>>>>> previous >>>>>> result for the given test method. >>>>>> >>>>>> The net result should be that tests that were load sensitive and >>>>>> intermittently fail during the first higher-concurrency test phase should >>>>>> (in theory) pass in the second, single worker test phase when the test >>>>>> suite >>>>>> is only using a single worker. This should make the test suite generate >>>>>> fewer false positives on test failure notification, which should make >>>>>> continuous integration servers (testbots) much more useful in terms of >>>>>> generating actionable signals caused by version control changes to the >>>>>> lldb >>>>>> or related sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know if you see any issues with this when running the >>>>>> test suite using the default output. I'd like to fix this up ASAP. And >>>>>> for >>>>>> those interested in the implementation, I'm happy to do post-commit >>>>>> review/changes as needed to get it in good shape. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll be watching the builders now and will address any issues as I >>>>>> see them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -Todd >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Todd >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Todd > > > > > -- > -Todd > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
