<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Assuming it's ok with all the other stakeholders (yeah, I know I've been hanging management types all day...) it's fine with me. My only thing is that I don't currently have access to any of that hardware, so if after fixing it goes back to red for non-trivial reasons I won't really be able to help track down what's causing the issues it is highlighting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dave <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Renato Golin<br><b>Sent:</b> 26 February 2013 17:10<br><b>To:</b> David Blaikie<br><b>Cc:</b> LLVM Developers Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [LLVMdev] ARMv5 Buildbot<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 26 February 2013 16:14, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" target="_blank">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p><span style='color:#222222'>I'm not sure I understand your question. Fail tests continue to run so we find out if they start passing as seems to be the case here. If llvm is now free of whatever bugs caused these things to fail (ie: it's not just that these stopped failing on this hardware but in all environments the xfail is for) then they should just be un-xfailed.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry, I got confused... starting over...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Some tests fail on ARMv7, others on ARMv5, and ExecutionEngine is old enough (and never worked properly on ARM) for me to care much for it. My question, and I think I have answered, is if it was possible to specify sub-arch, and it is if it's in the triple (right?), so "XFAIL: armv5" should do the trick if "armv5" is in the triple.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I confirm that the attached patch worked on my Panda and my laptop (x86_64), but I think it won't work on the llvm-arm-linux bot, since it's nor forcing "armv5" triple, but "arm-pc-linux" which won't match, though the armv7 ones will not XFAIL on it, thus passing. I'll commit and see how it behaves on the armv5 bot.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>David / Xerxes / Galina,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Is it ok if we change the buildmaster to call that bot-group "llvm-armv5-linux" or "llvm-arm-926"? So I can force the triple on the buildmaster config?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>--renato<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>