MaskRay added a comment. In D120305#3347152 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347152>, @tstellar wrote:
> In D120305#3347151 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347151>, @xbolva00 > wrote: > >>>> Given that the bot does not have a high success rate (track record) for at >>>> least the past month, I am unsure I am supposed to revert my change. >> >> What is interesting that always the patch author is the person to be blamed >> even when there are situations where it is so obvious that a bot has a >> problem. LLVM project/board should also care about buildbots and whether >> they work - also there should be strict policy about bot removal if >> maintainer does not want to spend any time to fix problems. >> >> It is very annoying to have unstable buildbots. One one side LLVM tries to >> be very inclusive and open for new people, on the other hand LLVM scares >> them with broken bots - first experience could be very bad. > > The problem here is not an unstable bot. If you look at the build log for > the bot, it is very clear that this patch introduced the failures. - https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/57?numbuilds=1000 (clang-ppc64le-rhel) the bot broken by this PIE change - https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/19?numbuilds=1000 (sanitizer-ppc64le-linux), happy with this change - https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/18?numbuilds=1000 (sanitizer-ppc64be-linux), happy with this change - https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/121?numbuilds=1000 (clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage), happy with this change clang-ppc64le-rhel has the lowest success rate. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
