Hi, I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. -Tom
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-08 15:50 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
On 8 June 2016 at 05:12, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing.All green for AArch64 with old ABI, and no libc++ & friends. Image uploaded. Once we have a green libc++ buildbot we'll start shipping them for AArch64, too. ARM is still in progress. cheers, --renato
Diana Picus via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-09 11:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
Hi, ARM is green, the binaries have been uploaded. Regards, Diana On 8 June 2016 at 18:50, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 8 June 2016 at 05:12, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. > > All green for AArch64 with old ABI, and no libc++ & friends. Image uploaded. > > Once we have a green libc++ buildbot we'll start shipping them for AArch64, too. > > ARM is still in progress. > > cheers, > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-09 16:08 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
Le 08/06/2016 à 06:12, Tom Stellard via Release-testers a écrit :> Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing.Green on most of the Debian main archs: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-3.8&suite=experimental The armel & mipsel build issue are not regressions from 3.8 (but are from 3.7) Cheers, Sylvestre
Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-09 16:14 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing.Windows looks good, binaries uploaded: (sha1sum) d1a1c3ab904abda822b94a4084a593edf0ac2a36 LLVM-3.8.1-rc1-win32.exe 04ef1d5965ce32dc1ce61bec04ad0f4fc21a5fd0 LLVM-3.8.1-rc1-win64.exe Cheers, Hans
Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-10 09:45 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
Hi, I had a quick look at that link and it seems to be a linker internal error. Presumably we're triggering a bug in the system toolchain. FWIW, my mipsel build on a Debian Jessie machine (binutils 2.24.90.20141023-1) successfully completed test-release.sh. I'm currently running the tests. Here's the relevant bit of the log from your link: cd "/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/build-llvm/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers" && /usr/bin/g++-5 -DCLANG_ENABLE_ARCMT -DCLANG_ENABLE_OBJC_REWRITER -DCLANG_ENABLE_STATIC_ANALYZER -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/build-llvm/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers" -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers" -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/tools/clang/include" -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/build-llvm/tools/clang/include" -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/build-llvm/include" -I"/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/include" -std=c++0x -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-missing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-comment -std=c++11 -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -Woverloaded-virtual -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -fno-exceptions -o CMakeFiles/clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers.dir/FixedAddressChecker.cpp.o -c "/«BUILDDIR»/llvm-toolchain-3.8-3.8.1~+rc1/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/FixedAddressChecker.cpp" /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.26 internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/merge.c:909 in _bfd_merged_section_offset /usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug. collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status ________________________________________ From: Release-testers [release-testers-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Sylvestre Ledru via Release-testers [release-testers at lists.llvm.org] Sent: 09 June 2016 17:08 To: Tom Stellard; release-testers at lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged Le 08/06/2016 à 06:12, Tom Stellard via Release-testers a écrit :> Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing.Green on most of the Debian main archs: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-3.8&suite=experimental The armel & mipsel build issue are not regressions from 3.8 (but are from 3.7) Cheers, Sylvestre _______________________________________________ Release-testers mailing list Release-testers at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers
Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-13 09:23 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
clang+llvm-3.8.1-rc1-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum 85baf8a1ecdf85c4ba1f2b09fa7156842d1cc5fb) Native: All ok. Cross compilation to various mips targets: All ok. clang+llvm-3.8.1-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum 248f7b1a073f599f594af2db2f5bf79345e69ddd) All ok. I get 48 check-all failures but these are not regressions compared to 3.8.0. The failures fall into two categories 64-bit atomics tests not linking to libatomic, and 64-bit sanitizers (which we tried for the first time in 3.8.0 and ended up disabling). AddressSanitizer-mips64-linux :: TestCases/Posix/coverage-direct-activation.cc AddressSanitizer-mips64-linux :: TestCases/Posix/coverage-direct-large.cc AddressSanitizer-mips64-linux :: TestCases/Posix/coverage-direct.cc AddressSanitizer-mips64-linux :: TestCases/Posix/coverage-fork-direct.cc AddressSanitizer-mips64-linux :: TestCases/Posix/coverage.cc DataFlowSanitizer :: custom.cc DataFlowSanitizer :: propagate.c MemorySanitizer :: dlerror.cc MemorySanitizer :: memcmp_test.cc MemorySanitizer-Unit :: Msan-mips64-Test/MemorySanitizer.ptrtoint MemorySanitizer-Unit :: Msan-mips64-with-call-Test/MemorySanitizer.ptrtoint SanitizerCommon-asan :: Linux/getpwnam_r_invalid_user.cc SanitizerCommon-lsan :: Linux/getpwnam_r_invalid_user.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: atexit2.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: deadlock_detector_stress_test.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: java_alloc.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: java_alloc.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: java_race_pc.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: longjmp.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: longjmp2.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: longjmp3.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: longjmp4.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: map32bit.cc ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: race_on_mutex.c ThreadSanitizer-mips64 :: signal_longjmp.cc libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.generic/integral.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_compare_exchange_strong.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_compare_exchange_weak.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_compare_exchange_weak_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_exchange.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_exchange.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_exchange_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_add.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_add_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_and.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_and_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_or.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_or_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_sub.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_sub_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_xor.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_fetch_xor_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_init.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_is_lock_free.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_load.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_load.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_load_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_store.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/atomic_store_explicit.pass.cpp libc++ :: std/atomics/atomics.types.operations/atomics.types.operations.req/ctor.pass.cpp clang+llvm-3.8.1-rc1-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum a57b2355686f20d56d69199ef9c237a4378f1fbf) All ok. I get the same libc++ failures as the mips-linux-gnu build above but these aren't regressions. I don't get the mips64 sanitizer failures because this is still disabled on this machine (the necessary multilibs aren't present).> -----Original Message----- > From: Release-testers [mailto:release-testers-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Stellard via Release-testers > Sent: 08 June 2016 05:12 > To: release-testers at lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged > > Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. > > -Tom > _______________________________________________ > Release-testers mailing list > Release-testers at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers
Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-18 02:28 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:12:01AM -0400, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote:> Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. >Hi, The test results seem good, so I'll tag -final on Monday. -Tom> -Tom > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Bernhard Rosenkränzer via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-18 08:31 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
Hi, we did some testing in OpenMandriva (sadly not as much as we wanted -- we're currently a little overloaded getting our own upcoming release from beta 2 to final). Looks good overall, but we found one regression: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28147 ttyl bero On 8 June 2016 at 06:12, Tom Stellard via Release-testers < release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi, > > I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. > > -Tom > _______________________________________________ > Release-testers mailing list > Release-testers at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160618/77ce24fc/attachment-0001.html>
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-Jun-18 10:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
On 18 June 2016 at 09:31, Bernhard Rosenkränzer <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> we did some testing in OpenMandriva (sadly not as much as we wanted -- we're > currently a little overloaded getting our own upcoming release from beta 2 > to final). Looks good overall, but we found one regression: > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28147Hi Bero, Excellent! Thank you! I'm investigating it right now... --renato