llvm dev - Aug 2009 - [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 fails to build from source on arm: MACHO_DYNAMIC_NO_PIC_P undeclared

On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
> Hello, Martin
>
>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc,
>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64:
>>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable
>> so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before it
>> was published.
> Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a 'tier-1'
> targets for llvm-gcc, there was noone who cared about it. Also, our
> linux resources are pretty limited, thus both ppc and arm were broken
> at the time for 2.5 release.
>
> Hopefully things will be much better with the coming 2.6 release, at
> least one might expect arm and ppc to be more or less ok. ia64 support
> was completely dropped and sparc should be brokens as of time of 2.5.
>
I just want to comment on this. We test our releases very throughly  
for supported targets. Supported means that they are actively  
maintained and tested day after day. If no one steps up to be a  
maintainer for these targets, then they will not become a part of the  
release criteria.

With that said, we only qualified for x86-32, x86-64, mingw32, and ppc  
(mac os 10.5 only).  So pretty much all the ones that are failing were  
not supported for 2.5. This list is only slightly expanded for 2.6,  
and will not include arm, ia64, sparc, or ppc. arm will probably work  
with 2.5, but unless someone wants to qualify it for the release (I do  
not have a volunteer), then it will not be on the list of supported  
targets.

We'd love help with these targets. Ideally, we need someone to set up  
an appropriate buildbot and actively monitor it and fix issues or file  
bug reports for things that come up.

Thanks,
Tanya

>> If the issues and fixes are "known", can you make them known
to the
>> public, for example by producing a 2.5.1 with the worst bugs fixed,  
>> or
>> by documenting the issues and patches in the "Known problems"
>> section?
>> It would be a big help to all the distro maintainers.
> You might want to stick with next 2.6 release, which is scheduled to
> be out within next 1.5 months
>
> I would like to comment on some other bugs as well:
> 478535: there are no plans to support of legacy IBM S390 platform,
> only 64 bit one (that's s390x in tartget triple). The current plans
> are to use clang only, not llvm-gcc, however I might be able to find
> few hours to give llvm-gcc a try.
> 539496: There are no plans to support ARMv4 in LLVM. As for ToT ARM
> builds of llvm-gcc (both for bare-metal arm-elf and normal
> arm-none-linux-gnueabi triples) is broken due to two PRs: 4680, 4681
> 511721: I believe it should be fixed on ToT.
> 518592: Sounds like compiler / linker problem, it's not LLVM related  
> at all
>
> -- 
> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State  
> University
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090819/6f00bb7d/attachment.html>

On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>
>> Hello, Martin
>>
>>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc,
>>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64:
>>>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable
>>> so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before
it
>>> was published.
>> Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a
'tier-1'
>> targets for llvm-gcc, there was noone who cared about it. Also, our
>> linux resources are pretty limited, thus both ppc and arm were broken
>> at the time for 2.5 release.
>>
>> Hopefully things will be much better with the coming 2.6 release, at
>> least one might expect arm and ppc to be more or less ok. ia64  
>> support
>> was completely dropped and sparc should be brokens as of time of 2.5.
>>
>
> I just want to comment on this. We test our releases very throughly  
> for supported targets. Supported means that they are actively  
> maintained and tested day after day. If no one steps up to be a  
> maintainer for these targets, then they will not become a part of  
> the release criteria.
>
> With that said, we only qualified for x86-32, x86-64, mingw32, and  
> ppc (mac os 10.5 only).  So pretty much all the ones that are  
> failing were not supported for 2.5. This list is only slightly  
> expanded for 2.6, and will not include arm, ia64, sparc, or ppc.
For what it's worth, Daniel and I recently set up a Mac OS 10.5 PPC G5  
box as a build bot machine. I've been monitoring it, so it's doing  
well for the 2.6 release. :-)

-bw
> arm will probably work with 2.5, but unless someone wants to qualify  
> it for the release (I do not have a volunteer), then it will not be  
> on the list of supported targets.
>
> We'd love help with these targets. Ideally, we need someone to set  
> up an appropriate buildbot and actively monitor it and fix issues or  
> file bug reports for things that come up.
>
> Thanks,
> Tanya
>
>
>>> If the issues and fixes are "known", can you make them
known to the
>>> public, for example by producing a 2.5.1 with the worst bugs  
>>> fixed, or
>>> by documenting the issues and patches in the "Known
problems"
>>> section?
>>> It would be a big help to all the distro maintainers.
>> You might want to stick with next 2.6 release, which is scheduled to
>> be out within next 1.5 months
>>
>> I would like to comment on some other bugs as well:
>> 478535: there are no plans to support of legacy IBM S390 platform,
>> only 64 bit one (that's s390x in tartget triple). The current plans
>> are to use clang only, not llvm-gcc, however I might be able to find
>> few hours to give llvm-gcc a try.
>> 539496: There are no plans to support ARMv4 in LLVM. As for ToT ARM
>> builds of llvm-gcc (both for bare-metal arm-elf and normal
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi triples) is broken due to two PRs: 4680, 4681
>> 511721: I believe it should be fixed on ToT.
>> 518592: Sounds like compiler / linker problem, it's not LLVM  
>> related at all
>>
>> -- 
>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State  
>> University
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Aug 21, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>
>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Martin
>>>
>>>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc,
>>>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64:
>>>>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable
>>>> so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested
before
>>>> it
>>>> was published.
>>> Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a
'tier-1'
>>> targets for llvm-gcc, there was noone who cared about it. Also, our
>>> linux resources are pretty limited, thus both ppc and arm were  
>>> broken
>>> at the time for 2.5 release.
>>>
>>> Hopefully things will be much better with the coming 2.6 release,
at
>>> least one might expect arm and ppc to be more or less ok. ia64  
>>> support
>>> was completely dropped and sparc should be brokens as of time of  
>>> 2.5.
>>>
>>
>> I just want to comment on this. We test our releases very throughly  
>> for supported targets. Supported means that they are actively  
>> maintained and tested day after day. If no one steps up to be a  
>> maintainer for these targets, then they will not become a part of  
>> the release criteria.
>>
>> With that said, we only qualified for x86-32, x86-64, mingw32, and  
>> ppc (mac os 10.5 only).  So pretty much all the ones that are  
>> failing were not supported for 2.5. This list is only slightly  
>> expanded for 2.6, and will not include arm, ia64, sparc, or ppc.
>
> For what it's worth, Daniel and I recently set up a Mac OS 10.5 PPC  
> G5 box as a build bot machine. I've been monitoring it, so it's  
> doing well for the 2.6 release. :-)
>
Now you set yourself up. Would you be willing to qualify 2.6 for Mac  
OS 10.5 ppc? If you have time,that would be very useful. :) If not, I  
understand.

-Tanya
> -bw
>
>> arm will probably work with 2.5, but unless someone wants to  
>> qualify it for the release (I do not have a volunteer), then it  
>> will not be on the list of supported targets.
>>
>> We'd love help with these targets. Ideally, we need someone to set
>> up an appropriate buildbot and actively monitor it and fix issues  
>> or file bug reports for things that come up.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>>>> If the issues and fixes are "known", can you make
them known to the
>>>> public, for example by producing a 2.5.1 with the worst bugs  
>>>> fixed, or
>>>> by documenting the issues and patches in the "Known
problems"
>>>> section?
>>>> It would be a big help to all the distro maintainers.
>>> You might want to stick with next 2.6 release, which is scheduled
to
>>> be out within next 1.5 months
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on some other bugs as well:
>>> 478535: there are no plans to support of legacy IBM S390 platform,
>>> only 64 bit one (that's s390x in tartget triple). The current
plans
>>> are to use clang only, not llvm-gcc, however I might be able to
find
>>> few hours to give llvm-gcc a try.
>>> 539496: There are no plans to support ARMv4 in LLVM. As for ToT ARM
>>> builds of llvm-gcc (both for bare-metal arm-elf and normal
>>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi triples) is broken due to two PRs: 4680,
4681
>>> 511721: I believe it should be fixed on ToT.
>>> 518592: Sounds like compiler / linker problem, it's not LLVM  
>>> related at all
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State  
>>> University
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090821/21c7f79a/attachment.html>

Hi Tanya, Bill, Anton and Martin.

I have recently set-up and installed a ARM buildbot that have currently
been building since August 21.
You can follow its progress here
http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux

I have also started to investigate the test failures and writing
bugreports. Currently about all test failures except are related to the
ExecutionEngine JIT and i am doing my best to stabilise it. There are
also one failure with the theTransforms/LICM/2003-12-11-SinkingToPHI.ll
test.

Im currently investigating the following bugs that are probably causing
most of these JIT-showstoppers for ARM:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4772   ARM unittest
JIT.GlobalInFunction fail during ARM Machine...
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4592   ARM JIT 1+1=0
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4593   ARM JIT BrainF -jit hello.bf
Asserts while deleting putchar

Any advise on how to best tackle the remaining ~28 JIT bugs using common
tools like gdb and code manipulation are most welcome.

Anton do you know if there are current any bugs that breaks clang/gcc on
ARM?

With this said i gladly volunteer during the coming months to do my best
make at least the ARM stable for the 2.6 release.

Greetings and have a great day!
Xerxes


Den 2009-08-20 01:30, Tanya Lattner skrev:
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>
>> Hello, Martin
>>
>>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc,
>>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64:
>>>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable
>>> so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before
it
>>> was published.
>> Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a
'tier-1'
>> targets for llvm-gcc, there was noone who cared about it. Also, our
>> linux resources are pretty limited, thus both ppc and arm were broken
>> at the time for 2.5 release.
>>
>> Hopefully things will be much better with the coming 2.6 release, at
>> least one might expect arm and ppc to be more or less ok. ia64 support
>> was completely dropped and sparc should be brokens as of time of 2.5.
>>
>
> I just want to comment on this. We test our releases very throughly
> for supported targets. Supported means that they are actively
> maintained and tested day after day. If no one steps up to be a
> maintainer for these targets, then they will not become a part of the
> release criteria.
>
> With that said, we only qualified for x86-32, x86-64, mingw32, and ppc
> (mac os 10.5 only).  So pretty much all the ones that are failing were
> not supported for 2.5. This list is only slightly expanded for 2.6,
> and will not include arm, ia64, sparc, or ppc. arm will probably work
> with 2.5, but unless someone wants to qualify it for the release (I do
> not have a volunteer), then it will not be on the list of supported
> targets.
>
> We'd love help with these targets. Ideally, we need someone to set up
> an appropriate buildbot and actively monitor it and fix issues or file
> bug reports for things that come up.
>
> Thanks,
> Tanya

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Xerxes Rånby<xerxes at zafena.se>
wrote:
> Hi Tanya, Bill, Anton and Martin.
>
> I have recently set-up and installed a ARM buildbot that have currently
> been building since August 21.
I refuse to have anything to do with the build bots anymore.

Cheers!
-bw

On Aug 27, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Xerxes Rånby wrote:
> I have recently set-up and installed a ARM buildbot
Wonderful.  It would be helpful to write up a bug report for the bits  
that don't work, and then to XFAIL them, so that the bot turns green.   
People watch mainly for the green to red transitions, and having it  
forever be red (orange) isn't as useful.