Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-08 Thread Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:08 PM Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:39 AM Adrian Prantl wrote: > >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev < >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:15 AM Davide Italiano >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-07 Thread Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:39 AM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:15 AM Davide Italiano > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:48 AM Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev >> wrote: >> > >> >

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-07 Thread Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
> On Jan 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:15 AM Davide Italiano > wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:48 AM Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev > mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-07 Thread Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:15 AM Davide Italiano wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:48 AM Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 4, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joel E. Denny > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-07 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:48 AM Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 4, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: >> > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-05 Thread Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures. > > > >> On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny > wrote: > >> > >>

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-04 Thread Frédéric Riss via lldb-dev
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures. > >> On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Thanks for the replies. Kuba: For LLDB, when were things

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-04 Thread Joel E. Denny via lldb-dev
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures. > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > All, > > Thanks for the replies. Kuba: For LLDB, when were things expected to have > improved? It's possible things improved for me

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-03 Thread Jan Kratochvil via lldb-dev
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:47:59 +0100, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Frédéric Riss wrote: > >> I immediately ran it again and saw one new unexpected fail: > >> lldb-Suite :: tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py > > > > Adrian, do we have remaining flakiness

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-03 Thread Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
> On Jan 3, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Frédéric Riss wrote: > > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures. > >> On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny > > wrote: > >> Expected Passes: 57489 >> Expected Failures : 276 >> Unsupported Tests : 1883 >>

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [lit] check-all hanging

2019-01-03 Thread Frédéric Riss via lldb-dev
-llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures. > On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > All, > > Thanks for the replies. Kuba: For LLDB, when were things expected to have > improved? It's possible things improved for me at some point, but this isn't > something I've found