search for: basictest

...723 [PR6270] PathV1::makeUnique() - r127731, r127732, r127733, r127734, r127775 [PR9234] test/CodeGen/X86 tweaks. - r127872 [PR6745] format("%e") Even with these patches, a few tests may fail. It seems {VS8 | VS10} Release are good. - VS8 Debug LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll LLVM-Unit :: support/debug/SupportTests.exe/CastingTest.cast - VS9 Debug LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll LLVM-Unit :: Support/Debug/SupportTests.exe/CastingTest.cast - VS9 Release LLVM :: CodeGen/ARM/bfi.ll LLVM :: CodeGen/ARM/va_arg.ll LLVM :: CodeGen...

...ien and I will work on completing the QA regression test script for NUT<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/qa-regression-testing/master/view/head:/scripts/test-nut.py>for NSS. for the time being, all the (few) current tests pass on the new trunk: > test_CVE_2012_2944 (__main__.BasicTest) > Test CVE-2012-2944 ... ok > test_daemons_pid (__main__.BasicTest) > Test daemons using PID files ... ok > test_daemons_service (__main__.BasicTest) > Test daemons using "service status" ... ok > test_upsc_device_list (__main__.BasicTest) > Test NUT client interface...

I'm having a problem with test/BugPoint/misopt-basictest.ll. I'm running it on a machine where gcc defaults to compiling 64-bit executables. When this test is executed, the code emitted by llc is 32-bit. So when gcc goes to compile it, it errors out because it's expected 64-bit assembly. My question is, is it okay to run this test with "-ru...

...s mail list? Now results. Big improvement in llvm tests results from last test result sended. New regressions: Regression.Assembler.ConstantExprFold : FAIL , expected PASS Regression.CodeGen.Generic.2004-04-09-SameValueCoalescing: FAIL , expected PASS Regression.Transforms.PRE.basictest : FAIL , expected PASS Regression.Transforms.TailCallElim.tail_call_with_branch: FAIL , expected PASS Full log attached. --- STATISTICS --------------------------------------------------------------- 920 tests total 856 ( 93%) tests as expected 6 ( 1%)...

...10, 2015 at 10:41:06AM -0600, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >> I have a customer testcase where SROA splits a volatile memcpy and we end up >> generating bad code[1]. While this looks like a bug, simply preventing SROA >> from splitting volatile memory intrinsics causes basictest.ll for SROA to >> fail. Not only that, but it also seems like handling of volatile memory >> transfers was done with some intent. > > There is no such thing as a volatile memcpy or memset in standard ISO C, > so what exactly are you doing and why do you expect it to work that...

.... Okay, but that did not seem to be a problem before. I thought about that being a possible problem. The make install removes the .exe extensions. But it does stop them being executed outside of Cygwin/bash. >2. You have a permissions problem on: >test/Regression/Analysis/Andersens/Output/basictest.ll.out.script. The >file couldn't be opened for writing. Possibly you have a hung build or >the permissions are just plain wrong? No .script file there there is basictest.ll.out however. >The messages indicating that LLVMGCCDIR is not set properly probably >also originate from not...

They are good. I am checking with Release now. 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m I will investigate it later. ...Takumi vs8 20>Failing Tests (3): 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m 20> LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll 20> LLVM-Unit :: support/debug/SupportTests.exe/CastingTest.cast 20> Expected Passes : 8106 20> Expected Failures : 73 20> Unsupported Tests : 552 20> Unexpected Failures: 3 vs9 10>Failing Tests (2): 10> LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll 10>...

Hi, I have a customer testcase where SROA splits a volatile memcpy and we end up generating bad code[1]. While this looks like a bug, simply preventing SROA from splitting volatile memory intrinsics causes basictest.ll for SROA to fail. Not only that, but it also seems like handling of volatile memory transfers was done with some intent. What are the design decisions in SROA regarding handling of volatile memcpy/memset? [1] In our applications, in most cases volatile objects are used to communicate with...

...ck" output has two classes of errors: 1. llvm-gcc or llvm-g++ not being found. Its possible this results from Cygwin requiring the .exe extension. The makefiles probably need to be enhanced to include the suffix. 2. You have a permissions problem on: test/Regression/Analysis/Andersens/Output/basictest.ll.out.script. The file couldn't be opened for writing. Possibly you have a hung build or the permissions are just plain wrong? The messages indicating that LLVMGCCDIR is not set properly probably also originate from not having the .exe suffix placed correctly. I'll see if I can work up a...

Reid, Okay seem to be most of the way there, just a couple of warnings/errors and more failed 'make checks' than before. make check results :- # of expected passes 1735 # of unexpected failures 45 # of expected failures 56 See attached file for details. There were two "errors" flagged up in the LLVM second phase build :- ******** Warning: Your

Thanks Vladimir. That's great! Glad you got it working. BTW, the failures you're seeing have been experienced by Chris and I as well. Chris is diligently working on making the LLVM processing more consistent so he track down the problem. A week ago or so, these tests passed at 100%. Reid. On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 15:50, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > In attached file. > > Vladimir

In attached file. Vladimir -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: test2004_06_20.log Type: application/octet-stream Size: 88488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040620/98042f01/attachment.obj>

...last test result sended. Great! That's what we want to see. :) > New regressions: > Regression.Assembler.ConstantExprFold : FAIL , expected PASS > Regression.CodeGen.Generic.2004-04-09-SameValueCoalescing: FAIL , > expected PASS > Regression.Transforms.PRE.basictest : FAIL , expected PASS > Regression.Transforms.TailCallElim.tail_call_with_branch: FAIL , > expected PASS These should all be xfails right now, so this is ok. > 920 tests total > 856 ( 93%) tests as expected > 6 ( 1%) tests unexpected FAIL...

...I agree. > >> I think if you're going to change the test you need to add "target" >> lines to the test to force it to be compiled 32-bit. > > Unfortunately, we don't have that mechanism available for C or C++ > files. ? the failing test is BugPoint/misopt-basictest.ll >> The real problem is the llvm you're testing is out of sync with the >> host compiler (for those following along at home, gcc defaults to 64- >> bit codegen in the environment Bill is testing). I think a better >> approach is to build llvm in such a way that it m...

On 11/11/2015 8:53 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > SROA seems to be doing a number of things here. What about if we prevented SROA from generating multiple slices splitting volatile accesses? There might be a significant difference between that and something like this test (test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll): > > define i32 @test6() { > ; CHECK-LABEL: @test6( > ; CHECK: alloca i32 > ; CHECK-NEXT: store volatile i32 > ; CHECK-NEXT: load i32, i32* > ; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 > > entry: > %a = alloca [4 x i8] > %ptr = getelementptr [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %a, i32 0, i32...

On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:59 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> I'm running into a problem where I need to have the "gcc" that's >> executed by "bugpoint" take certain arguments that aren't applicable >> to "llc". So, I came up with this patch, that adds a new flag >>

...ift-encoding.s**** > > LLVM :: MC/ARM/thumb-shift-encoding.s**** > > LLVM :: MC/COFF/global_ctors_dtors.ll**** > > LLVM :: Transforms/InstCombine/div-shift.ll**** > > LLVM :: Transforms/LoopIdiom/non-canonical-loop.ll**** > > LLVM :: Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll**** > > LLVM :: Transforms/SROA/phi-and-select.ll**** > > ** ** > > I haven't yet looked at them in detail, and obviously on the last two > clearly involve SROA, but given that these tests haven't started to fail > (or at least been fixed before I noticed) on...

...;s nearly complete, but I''ve run into a small issue: In OpenBase, you cannot override a default value with a NULL during an INSERT. OpenBase detects the null value and chooses the default instead. This means that my adapter is not passing the test_default_values_on_empty_strings(BasicTest). I need to first execute the INSERT, then send an UPDATE to nullify the necessary attributes. Is this something I should do at the adapter level, or should it perhaps go into the ActiveRecord? Since it seems that the other 8 database servers do not have this behavior, I''m think...

After a lot of testing and help from Duncan, Benjamin, Joerg and others, I think the new SROA is ready for some broader testing. I've fixed all the crashers and miscompiles that Duncan and Joerg have been able to find (although I'm sure there are a few left I'll tackle when there are reports), and the LNT numbers look *really* good. Here is the latest LNT run we got by flipping it on

Hi everyone, Following my earlier posting (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036292.html), I sent another message to the list, but it seems like it didn't get through :-( I managed to fix the problem in my earlier post and compile a cross-llvm-gcc. Then I discovered I was having problems with a setting a variable based on a ?: condition. Anyway, I've