Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (master) #3056

Backtrace: #1 0x0398c9f6 SignalHandler(int) (/home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/oss-swift-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-16_10/buildbot_incremental/swift-linux-x86_64/bin/swift+0x398c9f6) #2 0x7f5e37c6f670 __restore_rt (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0+0x11670) #3 0x0392f35e

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (swift 4.0) #74

Hi Ankit, this timed out in the swiftpm tests. Can your changes caused this? Can you please check? Thanks, Erik > On Apr 17, 2017, at 3:51 PM, no-re...@swift.org wrote: > > [FAILURE] oss-swift-4.0-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-16_10 [#74] > > Build URL: > https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.04 - Long Test (swift 4.0) #40

Max, seems to be yours: long-test/swift-corelibs-xctest/Sources/XCTest/Private/WallClockTimeMetric.swift:66:43: error: cannot invoke initializer for type 'Int' with an argument list of type '(Self.IndexDistance)' return self.reduce(0, +) / Double(Int(count))

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (swift 4.0) #74

Never mind, the following build is okay again. > On Apr 17, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Erik Eckstein wrote: > > Hi Ankit, > > this timed out in the swiftpm tests. > > Can your changes caused this? > > Can you please check? > > Thanks, > Erik > >> On Apr 17, 2017, at 3:51 PM, no-re...@swift.org

[swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 - Long Test (master) #1097

<<< text/html; charset=UTF-8: Unrecognized >>> ___ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

Re: [swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: 0. OSS - Swift Incremental RA - Ubuntu 16.10 (swift 4.0) #74

> On 18-Apr-2017, at 4:45 AM, Erik Eckstein wrote: > > Hi Ankit, > > this timed out in the swiftpm tests. > > Can your changes caused this? No, but I think I have seen similar timeout before. It might be due to some test acting weird, I'll investigate. > > Can you please check? > > Thanks