llvm dev - Feb 2016 - [3.8 Release] Release status

According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
soon, though.

This is what's blocking us:

- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch

- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
  But no comments yet.. Hal?

- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/

- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
  Looks like it's moving along.

- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
  I believe Matthias is working on it?
  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.

- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
  Is no one looking? :-(

If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.

Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.

Cheers,
Hans

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
> soon, though.
>
> This is what's blocking us:
>
> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>   I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
> r255691 on the branch
>
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
>
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427

--
Davide

I'd suggest that https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26554 should be
on that list.

- John Kåre

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
>> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
>> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're
officially
>> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up
pretty
>> soon, though.
>>
>> This is what's blocking us:
>>
>> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>>   I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can
revert
>> r255691 on the branch
>>
>> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
>>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427
>
> --
> Davide
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Hello,

this is probably not a blocker, but a rather small patch which is on review for
quite some time:

http://reviews.llvm.org/D13811

Just a suggestion integrating it into the release.

Best Regards,
Florian

Am Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016, 16:22:11 CET schrieb Hans Wennborg via
cfe-dev:
> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
> soon, though.
> 
> This is what's blocking us:
> 
> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>   I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
> r255691 on the branch
> 
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
> 
> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>   But no comments yet.. Hal?
> 
> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>   Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
> 
> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
> 
> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>   Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
>   Looks like it's moving along.
> 
> - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
>   I believe Matthias is working on it?
>   Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
> 
> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
>   Is no one looking? :-(
> 
> If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
> prioritize them if you can.
> 
> Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hans
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

Hi Hans,

I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without
it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing
to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine.

One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or
not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are
regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old
build and I get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into
the 3.7.1 build to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I
currently get.
________________________________________
From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg
via lldb-dev [lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org]
Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22
To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
release-testers at lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet;
Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
soon, though.

This is what's blocking us:

- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch

- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
  But no comments yet.. Hal?

- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/

- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
  Looks like it's moving along.

- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
  I believe Matthias is working on it?
  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.

- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
  Is no one looking? :-(

If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.

Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.

Cheers,
Hans
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

On 19 February 2016 at 00:22, Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
<lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>   But no comments yet.. Hal?
This looks like a serious bug but Hal's idea is still unproven. I
think we should land the patch as it is, since it disables the bad
behaviour, and think about a fix later. Depending on how complex the
fix is, we might not even merge it into 3.8.x later on, but we need
the fix in 3.8.0.

> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
No brainer. Accepted on trunk by compnerd, I'll merge into release_38
shortly.

cheers,
--renato

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> To: "Hans Wennborg" <hans at chromium.org>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev"
<lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
> "openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, release-testers at lists.llvm.org, "Cong Hou"
> <congh at google.com>, "Davide Italiano" <davide at
freebsd.org>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>,
"Hal Finkel"
> <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at
google.com>, "JF Bastien" <jfb at google.com>, "Nemanja
Ivanovic"
> <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com>, "Matthias Braun" <matze at
braunis.de>
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:33:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status
> 
> On 19 February 2016 at 00:22, Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
> >   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
> >   But no comments yet.. Hal?
> 
> This looks like a serious bug but Hal's idea is still unproven.
I feel your statement misrepresents my review of the patch. What I said in the
review was:

[from review]
How complicated would it be, instead of bailing out when we have a group without
the last member, to peel off the last vector iteration instead (i.e. jump to the
scalar tail loop one vector-loop iteration "early")?

It seems like that would be a better solution (although, if you agree, but it
seems too complicated to implement for the release branch, I'm fine with
taking this (and pulling it into the release branch), and then implementing the
better solution in trunk only).
[end from review]

What we have now is one easy fix, and I simply asked if we could get a much
better easy fix in short order (i.e. for 3.8.0). Regardless, I feel I was quite
clear in the review that this fix is otherwise fine, and we definitely need
something for 3.8.0. It is a serious bug.

Thanks again,
Hal

> I
> think we should land the patch as it is, since it disables the bad
> behaviour, and think about a fix later. Depending on how complex the
> fix is, we might not even merge it into 3.8.x later on, but we need
> the fix in 3.8.0.
> 
> 
> > - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
> >   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real
soon.
> 
> No brainer. Accepted on trunk by compnerd, I'll merge into release_38
> shortly.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

I've changed the lit arguments to '-v' on my old 3.7.1 build and
re-run check-all. I can confirm that these failures aren't regressions since
LLVM 3.7.1 did not actually run any libc++ tests. Looking through the generated
makefiles it seems that check-libcxx wasn't part of check-all.
________________________________________
From: Daniel Sanders
Sent: 19 February 2016 14:33
To: Hans Wennborg; llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org); release-testers at lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano;
Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic;
Matthias Braun
Subject: RE: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Hi Hans,

I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without
it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing
to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine.

One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or
not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are
regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old
build and I get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into
the 3.7.1 build to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I
currently get.
________________________________________
From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg
via lldb-dev [lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org]
Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22
To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
release-testers at lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet;
Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
soon, though.

This is what's blocking us:

- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch

- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
  But no comments yet.. Hal?

- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/

- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
  Looks like it's moving along.

- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
  I believe Matthias is working on it?
  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.

- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
  Is no one looking? :-(

If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.

Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.

Cheers,
Hans
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

On 19 February 2016 at 15:33, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 00:22, Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>>   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>>   But no comments yet.. Hal?
>
> This looks like a serious bug but Hal's idea is still unproven. I
> think we should land the patch as it is, since it disables the bad
> behaviour, and think about a fix later. Depending on how complex the
> fix is, we might not even merge it into 3.8.x later on, but we need
> the fix in 3.8.0.
r261341.

>> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>>   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real
soon.
>
> No brainer. Accepted on trunk by compnerd, I'll merge into release_38
shortly.
r261343.

cheers,
--renato

Hi Hans,

Thanks for pushing this forward.
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> 
> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
> soon, though.
> 
> This is what's blocking us:
> 
> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
> r255691 on the branch
> 
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427
> 
> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>  But no comments yet.. Hal?
> 
> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
> 
> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
> 
> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
>  Looks like it's moving along.
> 
> - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
>  I believe Matthias is working on it?
>  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
> 
> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
>  Is no one looking? :-(
I’ll have a look.

Cheers,
-Quentin
> 
> If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
> prioritize them if you can.
> 
> Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hans

Hi Hans,
> On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Quentin Colombet via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Hans,
> 
> Thanks for pushing this forward.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org
<mailto:hans at chromium.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org
<http://llvm.org/>), we should
>> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're
officially
>> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up
pretty
>> soon, though.
>> 
>> This is what's blocking us:
>> 
>> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>> I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can
revert
>> r255691 on the branch
>> 
>> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427>
> 
>> 
>> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>> There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>> But no comments yet.. Hal?
>> 
>> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>> Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
>> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
>> 
>> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>> It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
>> 
>> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>> Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
>> Looks like it's moving along.
>> 
>> - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
>> I believe Matthias is working on it?
>> Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
>> 
>> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
>> Is no one looking? :-(
Should be fixed as revision 261384 on trunk.

I leave the merge to you.

Thanks,
-Quentin
> 
> I’ll have a look.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
> 
>> 
>> If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
>> prioritize them if you can.
>> 
>> Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Hans
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160219/dbb22c8b/attachment.html>

Many thanks to everyone who helped out after this email yesterday!

Here's an update on the remaining issues. As you can see, it's a much
shorter list :-) I'm hoping to tag rc3 very soon.

Thanks again,
Hans

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
Fix is in r261387, will merge once it's baked in the tree for a bit.
> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>   Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
Keeping an eye on it, but it's not blocking.
> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>   Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
Looks like it's pretty much ready to land.
> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
Fix is in r261384, will merge after it's been in-tree for a while.

- r261297 - Implement the likely resolution of core issue 253.
  New from yesterday. Might want to merge this. Post-commit review
  is still ongoing.

I had hoped to tag rc3 today (I feel like I've said this a lot
lately), but it's at least really, really close. I'm waiting for:

- r261297 - Implement the likely resolution of core issue 253.
  Still in post-commit review.

- D17507 - The controlling expression for _Generic is unevaluated
  New for today. Waiting for review.

Thanks,
Hans