OpenMPBuilder didn't do enable_runtimes="auto". This is fixed in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-zorg/commit/b86d771caf03cb7fe94d0d187cad25d9519ea584.

Please keep it as is. I'll take a look later today on what might be wrong.

Thanks for updating the patch, JP.

libc will be a runtime by default.

Could you elaborate on why did you specify LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS explicitly, and why it does not match what's in the depends_on_projects, please? The same question is for LLVM_ENABLE_RUNTIMES and enable_runtimes respectively.

LGTM

LGTM.

LGTM.

The patch looks fine with one thing to fix.

Please ping me with the password for this worker before committing the patch.

LGTM.

LGTM.

LGTM.

The patch looks good in general.

There is no promise of forward compatibility as far as I know. Thus far I have seen working workers from version 0.8.4 to version 3.7.0. I have also seen people setting up workers from the source code and not any particular release. All this is fine. I don't think we should force everyone to use a particular version as long as that does not affect reliability of the production buildbot, and experiments with newer versions do not require much attention and troubleshooting on the server side. Being flexible with the requirements to workers help bot owners to keep them on their own schedule.

Production buildbot gets reconfigured or restarted only if it is necessary when we have less commits and builds activity. And that's usually combined with other maintenance work. Frankly, I don't think it worth mentioning in the docs.

That's fine, you do not have to submit perf results to LNT if you do not want to.
Just add something to the description which would provide the reasoning why you stop doing so. Saying something like "because recently LNT server became unreliable with accepting runs", or whatever you things the reason is, is Ok.

LGTM

More recent versions of buildbot-worker would work too. But you are right, we shall recommend what would work for sure and what would require less effort to setup.

LGTM

Could you update the summary with the reason of why LNT submit gets removed, please?

If LIT default threads usage is what you are after, the patch looks good.

Adding Simon as a reviewer.

LGTM

Feel free to connect your worker to the staging.

We can use this builder as a pilot of gated builds if you have bandwidth and are willing to babysit it for awhile. I'm looking forward to it.

LGTM.

LGTM with a nit pick.

LGTM.

LGTM.

LGTM.

Thanks, Amir!

Thanks, Muhammad!
Looks good.

The meaning is changing over time as we are getting more and more fast builders. For now, I'd call a builder quick if it is able to build each commit and stay current with the build queue in general (something like 3-5 minutes response time or better).

LGTM.

The patch looks good.

Thanks for making the changes!

LGTM.

LGTM.

Thanks for the patch, Muhammad.

Hello Ron,

The patch looks good. The only thing I'm not sure is the error handling at the check-bolt-different step. + one cosmetic nit pick.

Nice catch! :)

Thanks for the patch, Ilya!
And thanks for helping with the review, Kadir! All good comments.

I believe I commented this patch, but do not see my comments here. :(
Sorry for this.

Thanks everyone for helping with the review!

LGTM.

LGTM.

Hi Amir,

Hello David,

I don't think I'm a good reviewer for this patch.

LGTM.

LGTM.

Interesting.
Could you tell me how ccache with icecream will work for you with a real load after a few weeks of working, please?

Hi Amir,

The patch itself looks Ok.

Doesn't look like I'm a good reviewer for the proposed patch.

LGTM.

LGTM.

In D131077#3921152, @michaelplatings wrote:

Hi Galina, this change does build LLVM mainline (see line 42).

LGTM.

The patch itself looks good.

Hi Michael.

LGTM.

Thanks for the patch, Amir!

The patch itself looks good.

LGTM

LGTM

LGTM