With a recent change made to the llvm-test makefiles, you may start getting failures for everything. To fix this, remove the 'native output' with a command like this: find projects/llvm-test/ -name \*.out-nat -print -exec rm {} \; The next time you run llvm-test, the native output will be rebuilt properly. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
All, On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:04 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:> With a recent change made to the llvm-test makefiles, you may start > getting failures for everything. To fix this, remove the 'native output' > with a command like this: > > find projects/llvm-test/ -name \*.out-nat -print -exec rm {} \;FYI, the change made to llvm-test is to add an "exit <retval>" line at the end of a program's output. This will ensure that any difference in the program's return value (exit code) will be picked up by the DiffOutput script and reported as a failure. The tests have all been made "exit clean" (thanks Evan). The reason you need to remove the .out-nat file is that they won't contain the "exit <retval>" line until regenerated, while newly generated output for jit/llc/cbe will contain "exit <retval>", which leads to false positives.> > The next time you run llvm-test, the native output will be rebuilt > properly. > > -Chris >Reid.
Sarah Thompson
2006-Nov-29 22:13 UTC
[LLVMdev] I want to do something moderately insane, please help!
Hi, As some of you may remember, I'm implementing an LLVM-based model checker. I'm doing something a little odd, in that mostly I'm using the interpreter (currently a hacked version of lli with threads) for most things because I need to hook into lots of stuff that would be difficult to manage otherwise, but I'm also using the jitter for some things that need to be fast and/or link with external code. I currently expose some functions from the code being checked that allow you to slot in your own thread management, but I need this to be as fast as possible because it gets called a *lot*. I have managed OK with simply exposing a function and jitting it, then calling it through the runFunction member of the Jitter class, which works fine but seems a little slow. How feasible would it be to get at the underlying function pointer directly, seeing as the type signature is well-known in advance, then just calling it with a normal C-style call to a function pointer, e.g. (*compfn)(a,b). Yes, this is all a bit nuts, and yes, it's not really how either the interpreter or the jitter was meant to be used, but if I can make this particular trick work, it will significantly speed up the model checker, particularly since I'll be able to use it for a few other things too. Thanks, Sarah