Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
2020-Feb-10 15:25 UTC
[llvm-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 is here
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Rainer Orth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > Hi Hans, > > > It took a bit longer than planned due to master being a somewhat > > unstable at the branch point, but Release Candidate 1 has now been > > tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1. > > > > Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc1 > > > > Pre-built binaries will be added there as they become available. > > I've already uploaded Solaris 11.4/AMD64 and Solaris 11.4/SPARCv9 > binaries to releases-origin.llvm.org some time ago.Sorry, I missed this. Did you send an email when you uploaded? Can you please share the SHA1 or similar hashes so I can verify that I get the right ones on my end?> While amd64-pc-solaris2.11 results are en par with the LLVM 9.0.0 ones > (some failures fixed or xfailed since then) > > Expected Passes : 54488 > Expected Failures : 180 > Unsupported Tests : 2409 > Unexpected Failures: 23 > > the sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11 ones are horrible compared to the 9.0.0 ones: > > * 9.0.0 final: > > Expected Passes : 48477 > Expected Failures : 180 > Unsupported Tests : 1443 > Unexpected Passes : 1 > Unexpected Failures: 382 > > * 10.0.0 rc1: > > Expected Passes : 47959 > Expected Failures : 186 > Unsupported Tests : 1615 > Unexpected Passes : 1 > Unexpected Failures: 4278 > > A large number of those only occur for non-SPARC targets (something I > usually don't test at all), and even the buildbot is way way better with > only 51 unexpected failures. However, that one only does a 1-stage > build where errors due to Bug 42535 don't occur. Still, comparing > master results on Solaris 11.5/SPARC for all targets between a 1-stage > build with gcc 9.1.0 and a 2-stage build shows a similar pattern: > > * 1-stage: > > Expected Passes : 53734 > Expected Failures : 205 > Unsupported Tests : 2495 > Unexpected Passes : 1 > Unexpected Failures: 228 > > * 2-stage: > > Expected Passes : 45756 > Expected Failures : 205 > Unsupported Tests : 2495 > Unexpected Passes : 2 > Unexpected Failures: 7303 > > I fear this is effectively impossible to analyze let alone fix for the > 10.0.0 release.Thanks for the report! I guess since this doesn't seem to be well covered by continuous testing, it's not going to be good :-/ Should we highlight the status of Solaris/Sparc support in the release notes somehow? Thanks, Hans
Rainer Orth via llvm-dev
2020-Feb-10 15:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 is here
Hi Hans,> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Rainer Orth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Hans, >> >> > It took a bit longer than planned due to master being a somewhat >> > unstable at the branch point, but Release Candidate 1 has now been >> > tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1. >> > >> > Source code and docs are available at >> > https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc1 >> > >> > Pre-built binaries will be added there as they become available. >> >> I've already uploaded Solaris 11.4/AMD64 and Solaris 11.4/SPARCv9 >> binaries to releases-origin.llvm.org some time ago. > > Sorry, I missed this. Did you send an email when you uploaded? Can youI forgot, probably assuming that uploads to releases-origin.llvm.org would be noticed (or even picked up) automatically.> please share the SHA1 or similar hashes so I can verify that I get the > right ones on my end?Sure: b029dbf9216ce5a2ebdf3219c05e3cc27ce2b2dd clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-amd64-pc-solaris2.11.tar.xz 32056e671b4f25f23764b14a2b07e75b2bdb444a clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11.tar.xz>> While amd64-pc-solaris2.11 results are en par with the LLVM 9.0.0 ones >> (some failures fixed or xfailed since then) >> >> Expected Passes : 54488 >> Expected Failures : 180 >> Unsupported Tests : 2409 >> Unexpected Failures: 23 >> >> the sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11 ones are horrible compared to the 9.0.0 ones: >> >> * 9.0.0 final: >> >> Expected Passes : 48477 >> Expected Failures : 180 >> Unsupported Tests : 1443 >> Unexpected Passes : 1 >> Unexpected Failures: 382 >> >> * 10.0.0 rc1: >> >> Expected Passes : 47959 >> Expected Failures : 186 >> Unsupported Tests : 1615 >> Unexpected Passes : 1 >> Unexpected Failures: 4278 >> >> A large number of those only occur for non-SPARC targets (something I >> usually don't test at all), and even the buildbot is way way better with >> only 51 unexpected failures. However, that one only does a 1-stage >> build where errors due to Bug 42535 don't occur. Still, comparing >> master results on Solaris 11.5/SPARC for all targets between a 1-stage >> build with gcc 9.1.0 and a 2-stage build shows a similar pattern: >> >> * 1-stage: >> >> Expected Passes : 53734 >> Expected Failures : 205 >> Unsupported Tests : 2495 >> Unexpected Passes : 1 >> Unexpected Failures: 228 >> >> * 2-stage: >> >> Expected Passes : 45756 >> Expected Failures : 205 >> Unsupported Tests : 2495 >> Unexpected Passes : 2 >> Unexpected Failures: 7303 >> >> I fear this is effectively impossible to analyze let alone fix for the >> 10.0.0 release. > > Thanks for the report! > > I guess since this doesn't seem to be well covered by continuous > testing, it's not going to be good :-/Right: I simply don't have the cpu cycles to run 2- or even 3-stage builds on sparc, and as I mentioned a fast majority of issues only occurs there. All I can afford is 1-stage rebuilds with gcc 9 plus check-all, and those look reasonable.> Should we highlight the status of Solaris/Sparc support in the release > notes somehow?I guess so, especially since the results are so much worse then the 9.0.0 ones. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
2020-Feb-10 15:56 UTC
[llvm-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 is here
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:32 PM Rainer Orth <ro at cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:> > Hi Hans, > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Rainer Orth via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Hans, > >> > >> > It took a bit longer than planned due to master being a somewhat > >> > unstable at the branch point, but Release Candidate 1 has now been > >> > tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1. > >> > > >> > Source code and docs are available at > >> > https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc1 > >> > > >> > Pre-built binaries will be added there as they become available. > >> > >> I've already uploaded Solaris 11.4/AMD64 and Solaris 11.4/SPARCv9 > >> binaries to releases-origin.llvm.org some time ago. > > > > Sorry, I missed this. Did you send an email when you uploaded? Can you > > I forgot, probably assuming that uploads to releases-origin.llvm.org > would be noticed (or even picked up) automatically. > > > please share the SHA1 or similar hashes so I can verify that I get the > > right ones on my end? > > Sure: > > b029dbf9216ce5a2ebdf3219c05e3cc27ce2b2dd clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-amd64-pc-solaris2.11.tar.xz > 32056e671b4f25f23764b14a2b07e75b2bdb444a clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11.tar.xzThanks! These are now on the pre-release page.