Sorry I haven't had the time to dig into the issue but it looks someone else already fixed it :)
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 21:00, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This'll hopefully be addressed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D92563 > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 6:28 AM Diana Picus <diana.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Ping again. We're seeing this on several aarch64 bots, what can we do about >> it? >> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 21:19, David Blaikie via llvm-dev >> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Ping on this - Dan, any chance you could take a look here? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:48 PM Arthur Eubanks <aeuba...@google.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Another case: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43/builds/810 >>> > shtest-timeout.py seems to be fairly flaky on the >>> > clang-cmake-aarch64-quick bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/43, I >>> > get notifications from it fairly often >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev >>> > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Looks like there might still be some issues with the timeout tests? >>> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders/126/builds/226/steps/13/logs/FAIL__lit___shtest-timeout_py >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 2:44 PM Dan Liew <d...@su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > > One thing we could do to remove fragility in the test is to remove >>> >>> > > the >>> >>> > > running of `short.py` in the test. This is only invoked to check >>> >>> > > that >>> >>> > > it's possible for a command to run to completion in the presence of >>> >>> > > a >>> >>> > > fixed timeout. If we can live without testing that part (i.e. we >>> >>> > > only >>> >>> > > test that a timeout can be reached) then the test should be much >>> >>> > > more >>> >>> > > robust. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > If you're on board with that, it's a tradeoff I think is probably >>> >>> > reasonable from a test coverage V reliability V development time >>> >>> > tradeoff. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the delay here. I've put a patch up for review that goes >>> >>> with this approach: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88807 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
