Skip to content

Conversation

@cmonr
Copy link
Contributor

@cmonr cmonr commented Nov 30, 2018

Description

This is a continuation of #8914. As of right now, this apperas to be a suspect commit/PR, since nothing has passed since this PR came in.

Putting this in CI in parallel with the baseline test to get more information.

Note:

The last CI run on #8788 was three days ago.

It's possible that something within the CI tests have been updated such that they're now causing problems, since #8788 PR originally passed all tests.

Pull request type

[ ] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[ ] Test update
[ ] Breaking change
[x] None

This reverts commit d478d6b, reversing
changes made to f9d07f3.
@cmonr cmonr requested a review from a team November 30, 2018 06:11
@cmonr
Copy link
Contributor Author

cmonr commented Nov 30, 2018

CI started.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

@timurh01 @alekla01 Please help us review how #8788 got in with green tests (should have not be the case).

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

jenkins-ci/cloud-client-test — Success

@0xc0170 0xc0170 changed the title [DO NOT MERGE] Revert "Merge pull request #8788 from kaidokert/master" Revert "Merge pull request #8788 from kaidokert/master" Nov 30, 2018
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

Exporters failure

08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] .\BUILD\mbed-os-example-blinky.axf: Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol Image$$ARM_LIB_HEAP$$ZI$$Base (referred from .\build\mbed_boot_arm_std.o).
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] .\BUILD\mbed-os-example-blinky.axf: Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol Image$$ARM_LIB_HEAP$$ZI$$Length (referred from .\build\mbed_boot_arm_std.o).
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] .\BUILD\mbed-os-example-blinky.axf: Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK$$ZI$$Base (referred from .\build\mbed_boot_arm_std.o).
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] .\BUILD\mbed-os-example-blinky.axf: Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol Image$$ARM_LIB_STACK$$ZI$$Length (referred from .\build\mbed_boot_arm_std.o).
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] Not enough information to list load addresses in the image map.
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] Finished: 1 information, 0 warning and 4 error messages.
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] ".\BUILD\mbed-os-example-blinky.axf" - 4 Error(s), 68 Warning(s).
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] Target not created.
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] Build Time Elapsed:  00:01:12
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] 
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] FAILURE building mbed-os-example-blinky UNO_91H uvision5
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] ################################################################################
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] # Examples compilation summary
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] ################################################################################
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] #
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] ################################################################################
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] # Failed build combinations
08:25:15 [UNO_91H:uvision5] #############################################

I could not reproduce this yesterday, trying again now. will check if target contain these definitions.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

@timurh01 ^^ I reported this yesterday, seems like after few exporters run, we have it again

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Nov 30, 2018

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 4 of 4 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts
Build logs

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

I restarted exporters, and created an issue for the failure #8917

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

Exporters restarted, 🤞

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

Restarted client test to confirm this fixes the issue

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

No version, as the PR is only on master

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 90edddf into ARMmbed:master Nov 30, 2018
@adbridge
Copy link
Contributor

adbridge commented Nov 30, 2018

Actually this PR needs to go to whatever version the original offending PR is targetting . Ah should be ok as the original was just this one commit by the looks of it and not targeting a release.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 30, 2018

IT was just on master, I removed the version label (it was 5.11.1 but we havent yet released it), so just master. All should be good. Or both for 5.11.1 (does not make sense to me).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants