search for: path_test

Hi Dennis! clang-x64-ninja-win7 fails for some time on 1. UNRESOLVED: UBSan-Standalone-x86_64::log-path_test.cc <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/4522/steps/ninja%20check%201/logs/UNRESOLVED%3A%20UBSan-Standalone-x86_64%3A%3Alog-path_test.cc> this masks other new test failuers (clang modules related). Could you have a look? Yaron -------------- next part -----------...

...ote: > Hi, Jack! > > > I'll take a look at this. However, tests below fail for a different reason > (they don't use Debug/AsanTest at all). > How do you configure a CMake build tree? Can you somehow get (or run > manually) the script which is used > for running log-path_test.cc and other failing test cases? > > I have in build/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/lit_tests/Output/log-path_test.cc.tmp.log.393 ================================================================= ==393== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x00010a580fca at pc 0x10829c...

...bal weak symbol vtable for llvm::convertible_fwd_ostream means the weak symbol cannot be overridden at runtime. This was likely caused by different translation units being compiled with different visibility settings. I am seeing some AddressSanitizer failures like... FAIL: AddressSanitizer :: log-path_test.cc (13 of 12542) ******************** TEST 'AddressSanitizer :: log-path_test.cc' FAILED ******************** FAIL: AddressSanitizer :: strncpy-overflow.cc (27 of 12542) ******************** TEST 'AddressSanitizer :: strncpy-overflow.cc' FAILED ******************** FAIL: AddressSa...

...being compiled with different visibility settings. > I'll take a look at this. However, tests below fail for a different reason (they don't use Debug/AsanTest at all). How do you configure a CMake build tree? Can you somehow get (or run manually) the script which is used for running log-path_test.cc and other failing test cases? > > I am seeing some AddressSanitizer failures like... > > FAIL: AddressSanitizer :: log-path_test.cc (13 of 12542) > ******************** TEST 'AddressSanitizer :: log-path_test.cc' FAILED > ******************** > > FAIL: AddressSa...

Hi, The 6.0.1-rc2 release has been tagged. Testers may begin testing and reporting results. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 6.0.1-rc1 release. Testers may begin testing and uploading binaries. Also, any tester who has not tested 5.0.2-rc1 and would like to do so please try to do this before Friday, because I would like to tag 5.0.2-final then. As a reminder to users and developers, May 18 is the deadline for submitting merge requests for 6.0.1, so there is still time to get bug fixes

...sSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/invalid-pointer-pairs-subtract-success.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/invalid-pointer-pairs.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/large_func_test.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/log-path_test.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/longjmp.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/lsan_annotations.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/malloc_context_size.cc AddressSanitizer-i386-freebsd-dynamic :: TestCases/malloc_fill.cc Add...

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in >> a better state now. >> >> 6.0.0-rc2 was just tagged, after r324506. >> >>

Hi, I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a reminder, when doing regression testing, use the 3.7.0 release as your baseline. Thanks, Tom

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc2. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. If all goes well, this will be the last -rc. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371837. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc5 Binaries will be added as they become available. There is only a single change from rc4 to rc5. Once more, the hope is that this will be the last release candidate and that we can

Hello again, 9.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371490. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc4 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are not a lot of changes from rc3 to rc4, and there are again no open release blockers, so I'm hoping this will be the last

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc3 was tagged today from the release_90 branch at r370450. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc3 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are currently no open release blockers, which means if nothing new comes up, the final release could ship soon and this is

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc6 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r372100. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc6. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc6 This is the same as rc5 plus one very minor change (r371969) that still seemed good to pick up. I'm not allocating extra time for testing this one, expecting to tag