On 07/ 4/11 01:39 AM, Eli Friedman wrote:> For the JIT failures, it would be nice if you could track down the SVN > revision when it started failing. (We have an ARM buildbot at > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 , > but the JIT was already broken when it was set up.)I've used my i.MX53 board to get this, but I'm returning it today back to Freescale and my pandaboard is testing GHC performance so I'll not be able to get to this again earlier than next week. Anyway, JIT failures happens somewhere between 131458 (which is OK) and 131466 (where JIT tests fail). Let me know if this is enough or I shall continue to point to the culprit revision directly. Thanks, Karel
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote:> On 07/ 4/11 01:39 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> For the JIT failures, it would be nice if you could track down the SVN >> revision when it started failing. (We have an ARM buildbot at >> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 , >> but the JIT was already broken when it was set up.) > > I've used my i.MX53 board to get this, but I'm returning it today back to > Freescale and my pandaboard is testing GHC performance so I'll not be able > to get to this again earlier than next week. > > Anyway, JIT failures happens somewhere between 131458 (which is OK) and > 131466 (where JIT tests fail). Let me know if this is enough or I shall > continue to point to the culprit revision directly.Given that revision range, the only remotely likely culprit is 131463. Which basically means that it "broke" because the default target features changed. I'll going to try and debug this. -Eli
On 07/ 8/11 05:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Karel Gardas<karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: >> On 07/ 4/11 01:39 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>> For the JIT failures, it would be nice if you could track down the SVN >>> revision when it started failing. (We have an ARM buildbot at >>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 , >>> but the JIT was already broken when it was set up.) >> >> I've used my i.MX53 board to get this, but I'm returning it today back to >> Freescale and my pandaboard is testing GHC performance so I'll not be able >> to get to this again earlier than next week. >> >> Anyway, JIT failures happens somewhere between 131458 (which is OK) and >> 131466 (where JIT tests fail). Let me know if this is enough or I shall >> continue to point to the culprit revision directly. > > Given that revision range, the only remotely likely culprit is 131463. > Which basically means that it "broke" because the default target > features changed.Pandaboard's finished testing a little bit sooner so it's now on tracking job again. 131462 was OK, now testing 131464... Karel
On 07/ 8/11 05:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:> Given that revision range, the only remotely likely culprit is 131463. > Which basically means that it "broke" because the default target > features changed.And you are right here. 131463 == 131464 which is buggy. 131462 is OK. Thanks, Karel