Hi, There is a typo in $LLVM_SRC/Makefile.rules on line 750 where it says : SharedLibKindMessage := "Lodable Module" instead of SharedLibKindMessage := "Loadable Module" Op 15-nov-06, om 15:54 heeft Bram Adams het volgende geschreven:> Didn't check > LLVM's test suite.Doing the simple LLVM-tests (on Slackware 10.2) gets: === Summary == # of expected passes 1411 # of unexpected failures 140 # of expected failures 33 I also ran the comprehensive test suite, but I'm not sure how to get similar numerical results like the simple tests yield (I only get lots of textual traces). Kind regards, Bram Adams GH-SEL, INTEC, Ghent University
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Bram Adams wrote:> There is a typo in $LLVM_SRC/Makefile.rules on line 750 where it says : > SharedLibKindMessage := "Lodable Module" > instead of > SharedLibKindMessage := "Loadable Module"Thanks, I updated mainline CVS. -Chris> Op 15-nov-06, om 15:54 heeft Bram Adams het volgende geschreven: > >> Didn't check >> LLVM's test suite. > > Doing the simple LLVM-tests (on Slackware 10.2) gets: > > === Summary ==> > # of expected passes 1411 > # of unexpected failures 140 > # of expected failures 33 > > I also ran the comprehensive test suite, but I'm not sure how to get > similar numerical results like the simple tests yield (I only get > lots of textual traces). > > Kind regards, > > Bram Adams > GH-SEL, INTEC, Ghent University > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
>> Didn't check >> LLVM's test suite. > > Doing the simple LLVM-tests (on Slackware 10.2) gets: > > === Summary ==> > # of expected passes 1411 > # of unexpected failures 140 > # of expected failures 33Can you send the log file to the list? Is this ppc or?> I also ran the comprehensive test suite, but I'm not sure how to get > similar numerical results like the simple tests yield (I only get > lots of textual traces).You should do "make TEST=nightly report" to get a comprehensive report of the llvm-test suite. -Tanya
Hi, Bram Adams wrote:> Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >>> === Summary ==>>> >>> # of expected passes 1411 >>> # of unexpected failures 140 >>> # of expected failures 33 >>> >> Can you send the log file to the list? Is this ppc or? >>No ppc, but x86 (Slackware 10.2) with LLVM 1.9 and its associated GCC4-based frontend (recompiled for my machine). I put the log file in attachment. A lot of failures arose from the fact that the ppc, alpha, ... backends were not built and hence not found.>> You should do "make TEST=nightly report" to get a comprehensive report of >> the llvm-test suite. >>Ah, thanks. I ran the test suite and attached the results. Kind regards, Bram Adams GH-SEL, INTEC, Ghent University (Belgium) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061116/908df4d7/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reports.tar.bz2 Type: application/x-bzip Size: 10826 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061116/908df4d7/attachment.bin>
> No ppc, but x86 (Slackware 10.2) with LLVM 1.9 and its associated > GCC4-based frontend (recompiled for my machine). I put the log file in > attachment. A lot of failures arose from the fact that the ppc, alpha, ... > backends were not built and hence not found.Ah yes I see. The test framework needs to be modified to handle this but we havent gotten around to it. There is already a bug filed. Otherwise, test results are fine.>> > You should do "make TEST=nightly report" to get a comprehensive report >> > of the llvm-test suite. >> > > Ah, thanks. I ran the test suite and attached the results.Thanks. I did a quick glance and for the most part things look ok. -Tanya