llvm dev - Jan 2016 - [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] RC1 has been tagged

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca>
wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64
>>>
>>> Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1.  Is
there any
>>> way to tell whether these are regressions vs
new-to-3.8.0-but-failing?  The
>>> MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++
errors were
>>> not in 3.7.1.
>>>
>>>
>> All of the libc++ failures seem like non-issues and should be in 3.7.1.
>> Did you change or upgrade your platform or libc version?  I'm not
sure
>> about the libc++abi error though.
>>
>
> I don't recall any changes to libc.  Attached is the testing log from
> 3.7.1 rc2 (I don't have logs from -final handy).
>
> I can repeat a 3.7.1 release build on this system now.  I don't think
the
> results will change, though.
>
>
I discussed this more with Eric off-list and I think we've come to the
conclusion that this was not a regression, it was my error.

It's a bit tricky -- what should I expect for a new platform?  All failing
tests are likely failing because they can't be/aren't yet supported? 
It's
tough to distinguish -- are they real bugs to be fixed, errors in the
build/release process?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160124/ed86f723/attachment.html>

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev
>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64
>>>>
>>>> Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1. 
Is there any
>>>> way to tell whether these are regressions vs
new-to-3.8.0-but-failing?  The
>>>> MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++
errors were
>>>> not in 3.7.1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of the libc++ failures seem like non-issues and should be in
3.7.1.
>>> Did you change or upgrade your platform or libc version?  I'm
not sure about
>>> the libc++abi error though.
>>
>>
>> I don't recall any changes to libc.  Attached is the testing log
from
>> 3.7.1 rc2 (I don't have logs from -final handy).
>>
>> I can repeat a 3.7.1 release build on this system now.  I don't
think the
>> results will change, though.
>>
>
> I discussed this more with Eric off-list and I think we've come to the
> conclusion that this was not a regression, it was my error.
>
> It's a bit tricky -- what should I expect for a new platform?  All
failing
> tests are likely failing because they can't be/aren't yet
supported?  It's
> tough to distinguish -- are they real bugs to be fixed, errors in the
> build/release process?
Ideally, all tests should pass on the platforms we build for. In your
case, it's not even very exotic, just x86_64 Linux. The LLVM and Clang
tests are pretty good in this regard, but various sanitizer and libc++
tests seem less stable. In practice, we've been releasing as long as
the failures don't look like regressions from previous releases.

Phase1 fails to build on openSUSE 13.2, can anyone see what's wrong from
this log file?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at
efcs.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev
> >>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks like I see several failures that weren't in
3.7.1.  Is there any
> >>>> way to tell whether these are regressions vs
> new-to-3.8.0-but-failing?  The
> >>>> MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the
libc++ errors
> were
> >>>> not in 3.7.1.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All of the libc++ failures seem like non-issues and should be
in 3.7.1.
> >>> Did you change or upgrade your platform or libc version? 
I'm not sure
> about
> >>> the libc++abi error though.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't recall any changes to libc.  Attached is the testing
log from
> >> 3.7.1 rc2 (I don't have logs from -final handy).
> >>
> >> I can repeat a 3.7.1 release build on this system now.  I
don't think
> the
> >> results will change, though.
> >>
> >
> > I discussed this more with Eric off-list and I think we've come to
the
> > conclusion that this was not a regression, it was my error.
> >
> > It's a bit tricky -- what should I expect for a new platform?  All
> failing
> > tests are likely failing because they can't be/aren't yet
supported?
> It's
> > tough to distinguish -- are they real bugs to be fixed, errors in the
> > build/release process?
>
> Ideally, all tests should pass on the platforms we build for. In your
> case, it's not even very exotic, just x86_64 Linux. The LLVM and Clang
> tests are pretty good in this regard, but various sanitizer and libc++
> tests seem less stable. In practice, we've been releasing as long as
> the failures don't look like regressions from previous releases.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160126/7af1d20d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: log.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 165152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160126/7af1d20d/attachment-0001.zip>