The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in a Release-Asserts build it might not.) Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dmitri Gribenko Sent: 08 January 2013 18:16 To: Renato Golin Cc: Clang Dev; LLVM Dev Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] ARM failures On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> The following failures are consistent on buildbot (and my local box).[...]> LLVM :: Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/post-inc-icmpzero.ll > LLVM :: Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/2012-07-18-LimitReassociate.llIt is interesting that I don't see this on my ARM box. Instead I see these: Failing Tests (5): LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/pr13727.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-common-symbols.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp-no-external-funcs.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp.ll I configure with: --build=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf --host=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf --target=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=neon --with-float=hard --enable-optimized $ cat /proc/cpuinfo Processor : ARMv7 Processor rev 0 (v7l) processor : 0 BogoMIPS : 1992.29 processor : 1 BogoMIPS : 1992.29 Features : swp half thumb fastmult vfp edsp vfpv3 vfpv3d16 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 7 CPU variant : 0x1 CPU part : 0xc09 CPU revision : 0 Any ideas? Dmitri -- main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/ _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote:> The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with > > make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile > > and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in a Release-Asserts build > it might not.)All these tests fail with 'illegal instruction' signal. For example: ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: -- /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll> /dev/null-- Exit Code: 132 Command Output (stderr): -- Stack dump: 0. Program arguments: /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/Output/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll.script: line 1: 28126 Illegal instruction /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll> /dev/nullDmitri -- main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/
You can compare your configure/build arguments + environment with the build bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/4313/steps/configure/logs/stdio I'll check how I built my LLVM on Chromebook tomorrow, but it didn't look too different to yours. --renato On 8 January 2013 19:08, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: > > The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and > implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with > > > > make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile > > > > and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more > details? (Quite possible in a Release-Asserts build > > it might not.) > > All these tests fail with 'illegal instruction' signal. For example: > > ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: > ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll' FAILED > ******************** > Script: > -- > /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli > -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit > /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll > > /dev/null > -- > Exit Code: 132 > Command Output (stderr): > -- > Stack dump: > 0. Program arguments: > /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli > -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit > /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll > > /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/Output/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll.script: > line 1: 28126 Illegal instruction > /home/grib/clang/llvm-build-armhf/Release+Asserts/bin/lli > -mtriple=armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -use-mcjit > /home/grib/clang/llvm/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll > > /dev/null > > Dmitri > > -- > main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if > (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/ >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/e2ca40bd/attachment.html>