NaCl: Update revision in DEPS, r8414 -> r8444

NaCl: Update revision in DEPS, r8414 -> r8444

This pulls in the following Native Client changes:

r8415: (robertm) Revert r8410 as it causes problems with pnacl's glibc toolchain build
r8416: (bradchen) New fsincos instruction type for the x86-64 decoder.
r8417: (robertm) Advertise the new "driver-install-translator" mode as part of the standard 
r8418: (jvoung) Bump llvm rev for: http://codereview.chromium.org/10151020/
r8419: (mseaborn) Remove the obsolete "common" directory
r8420: (robertm) Fix one remaining use of common storage and turn on -fno-common again.
r8421: (jvoung) Bump llvm rev for:
r8422: (robertm) PNaCl TC: Turn on sanboxed gold linker for the static builds
r8423: (dschuff) Add arm-hw buildbot mode to spec2k.py
r8424: (bsy) Make the Windows flavor of NaClFastMutex be binary mutexes.
r8425: (mseaborn) Remove no-op functions NaClSysCommonThreadSyscall{Enter,Leave}()
r8426: (bbudge) Update Chrome revision in NaCl DEPS.
r8428: (bbudge) Revert 8426 - Update Chrome revision in NaCl DEPS.
r8430: (khim) added a test to check glibc socket functions wrappers
r8431: (khim) ragel_validator: replace ugly "if (0)" hack with slightly less ugly macroses
r8433: (khim) Shrink validator-x86_64.c by 30%
r8434: (robertm) Turn off pic mode for dynamic images (PNaCl toolchain).
r8435: (robertm) Roll pnacl_llvm_testsuite_rev to pull in some fixes for common storage
r8436: (jvoung) Bump llvm rev again, for 0-len (non-)assertion:
r8437: (jvoung) Shift transfersize perf expectations for several spec benchmarks after
r8438: (robertm) Be more lenient in the pnacl driver and allow pic mode for static images
r8439: (mseaborn) Unify browser/non-browser test executables used by inbrowser_test_runner
r8440: (jvoung) Really update the perf expectations for x86-64 spec bot... Picked a bad
r8441: (mseaborn) Update chrome_rev in DEPS (but not chromebinaries_rev)
r8443: (mseaborn) Run random_test in the browser (via inbrowser_test_runner)
r8444: (mseaborn) Split SelLdrLauncher into SelLdrLauncher{Standalone,Chrome} classes

BUG=none
TEST=nacl_integration

[vissi, 2012-04-28 12:57:16]

This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.

[vissi, 2012-04-28 13:08:52]

On 2012/04/28 12:57:16, vissi wrote:
> This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.

Per offline discussion w/ @khim, @pasko, we thought it's better not to bump nacl
revision in general (for example, due to red buildbot on the latest commit).

[Mark Seaborn, 2012-04-28 18:00:20]

On 28 April 2012 06:08, <vissi@google.com> wrote:

> On 2012/04/28 12:57:16, vissi wrote:
>
>> This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.
>>
>
> Per offline discussion w/ @khim, @pasko, we thought it's better not to
> bump nacl
> revision in general (for example, due to red buildbot on the latest
> commit).
>

We're having trouble with flaky tests at the moment (often Chromium being
flaky, but not always), so test failures on the NaCl buildbot (at
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.nacl/console) don't necessarily mean a
revision is not OK to roll into Chromium.  In particular, the ARM failures
on r8444 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to?) are flake.

Mark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Native-Client-Reviews" group.
To post to this group, send email to native-client-reviews@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
native-client-reviews+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/native-client-reviews?hl=en.

[Mark Seaborn, 2012-04-28 18:00:21]

On 28 April 2012 06:08, <vissi@google.com> wrote:

> On 2012/04/28 12:57:16, vissi wrote:
>
>> This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.
>>
>
> Per offline discussion w/ @khim, @pasko, we thought it's better not to
> bump nacl
> revision in general (for example, due to red buildbot on the latest
> commit).
>

We're having trouble with flaky tests at the moment (often Chromium being
flaky, but not always), so test failures on the NaCl buildbot (at
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.nacl/console) don't necessarily mean a
revision is not OK to roll into Chromium.  In particular, the ARM failures
on r8444 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to?) are flake.

Mark

[vissi, 2012-04-28 18:02:47]

Thanks a lot, that's why the change would be better done with your approval.

суббота, 28 апреля 2012 г. пользователь Mark Seaborn писал:

> On 28 April 2012 06:08, <vissi@google.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'vissi@google.com');>> wrote:
>
>> On 2012/04/28 12:57:16, vissi wrote:
>>
>>> This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.
>>>
>>
>> Per offline discussion w/ @khim, @pasko, we thought it's better not to
>> bump nacl
>> revision in general (for example, due to red buildbot on the latest
>> commit).
>>
>
> We're having trouble with flaky tests at the moment (often Chromium being
> flaky, but not always), so test failures on the NaCl buildbot (at
> http://build.chromium.org/p/client.nacl/console) don't necessarily mean a
> revision is not OK to roll into Chromium.  In particular, the ARM failures
> on r8444 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to?) are flake.
>
> Mark
>
>

-- 
V.S.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Native-Client-Reviews" group.
To post to this group, send email to native-client-reviews@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
native-client-reviews+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/native-client-reviews?hl=en.

[vissi, 2012-04-28 18:02:49]

Thanks a lot, that's why the change would be better done with your approval.

суббота, 28 апреля 2012 г. пользователь Mark Seaborn писал:

> On 28 April 2012 06:08, <vissi@google.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'vissi@google.com');>> wrote:
>
>> On 2012/04/28 12:57:16, vissi wrote:
>>
>>> This is to bring in latest nacl-glibc changes to nacl sdk.
>>>
>>
>> Per offline discussion w/ @khim, @pasko, we thought it's better not to
>> bump nacl
>> revision in general (for example, due to red buildbot on the latest
>> commit).
>>
>
> We're having trouble with flaky tests at the moment (often Chromium being
> flaky, but not always), so test failures on the NaCl buildbot (at
> http://build.chromium.org/p/client.nacl/console) don't necessarily mean a
> revision is not OK to roll into Chromium.  In particular, the ARM failures
> on r8444 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to?) are flake.
>
> Mark
>
>

-- 
V.S.