Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "129072".
Did you mean:
12907
2011 Apr 08
0
[LLVMdev] Assuring ARM code quality in LLVM
Hi Renato,
> I was recently investigating the build bot infrastructure and noticed
> that the arm-linux target is failing for quite a long time. I believe
> that it means ARM code is not executed all that often in LLVM tests,
> is that correct?
>
> We were wondering what kind of support we could give to make sure ARM
> code is correct and don't regress, specially before
2011 Apr 08
2
[LLVMdev] Assuring ARM code quality in LLVM
...://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/760/steps/test-llvm/logs/i128-addsub.ll>
... 761 - 769 - dito
http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/770 - Revision: 129068 failed build
http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/771 - Revision: 129072 failed 2009-03-17-lsr-apint.ll <http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/771/steps/test-llvm/logs/2009-03-17-lsr-apint.ll> add-with-overflow-128.ll <http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/llvm-arm-linux/builds/771/steps/test-llvm/logs/add-with-overflow-128.ll> i128...
2011 Apr 07
4
[LLVMdev] Assuring ARM code quality in LLVM
Hi all,
I was recently investigating the build bot infrastructure and noticed
that the arm-linux target is failing for quite a long time. I believe
that it means ARM code is not executed all that often in LLVM tests,
is that correct?
We were wondering what kind of support we could give to make sure ARM
code is correct and don't regress, specially before releases (I know
it's a bit late