search for: pr16013

...strikes me as odd > that we have such a different behaviour between them. Hmm. I'll see what I can do on my tablet (not tried building LLVM there before so it could take a while), it seems like there are *some* failures everywhere. If we're lucky it'll just be a matter of fixing the PR16013 that David reported. Tim.

Thanks for looking at this Tim. On a pandaboard, at least with the Release+Asserts config I tried, those tests do complain on stderr but llvm-lit thinks they've passed/expected fails, they don't actually count as fails like they do on the buildbot. Regarding solving PR16013 that looks like a relatively tractable job (on both 32-bit arm and aarch64) IF you're already familiar with the implications of what the instruction set does; unfortunately that set doesn't include me... Cheers, Dave ________________________________________ From: Tim Northover [t.p.northov...

Remote mcjit has never worked on arm. By removing the assertion, we're no longer seeing deterministic failures. I think by fixing PR16013 we'll enable support for remote mcjit on arm, and can then remove the xfails altogether. In the meantime, marking the tests as unsupported seems to be the best option. I don't have a machine for a few days but I can take a look at finally cleaning up resolveRelocations() next week. Amara...

So, it seems David beat me to it, and the assert has already been removed, but the failures are still inconsistent. A9-check-all, compiled with GCC: Tests XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-common-symbols-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-ptr-reloc-remote.ll Unit-tests pass. A9-self-host, compiled with

On 18 May 2013 19:29, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: > Regarding solving PR16013 that looks like a relatively tractable job (on > both 32-bit arm and aarch64) IF you're already familiar with the > implications of what the instruction set does; unfortunately that set > doesn't include me... > Hi David, I'll move all remote tests to a dir and mark them u...

On 18 May 2013 09:56, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > According to Amara that assertion was a bit of paranoia so we'd know > if someone tried emitting .rel relocations and sending the result > through MCJIT. However, now we routinely re-relocate using explicit > addends so as he says it can probably just be removed. > Hi Tim, Sorry, I saw that thread