search for: regtests

Hi Hal, On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > İsmail, > > These are self-hosted builds? It seems like a lot of crashes in > llvm::sys::AtomicIncrement. Yes. stage1 clang is used in stage2. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:31 AM >

Hi, On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > Okay, interesting. I also did a build with -mcpu=ppc64 and did not observe > these issues. What standard C++ library are you building against? > I disabled assertions and the number of failures halved but Debuginfo failures looks very weird. Don't know if it helps to debug the issue at hand.

Hi, On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > İsmail, > > I still don't see these errors locally. Can you try with an autoconf-based > build and see if they're somehow related to (triggered by) the way that > cmake builds LLVM? > > On the same machine autoconf build is fine where as cmake has failures, reproduced simply with

----- Original Message ----- > From: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:18:48 AM > Subject: Re: Lots of regtest failures on PPC64/Linux > > > Hi Hal, > > > > > > On

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:14:18 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lots of regtest failures on PPC64/Linux > > Hi Ismail, > > Is

missing-abstract-variable is a recent one I introduced - looking into it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:39 AM, İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > These tests failures go away when I disable static libs aka > -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF , with that only 2 regtest failures are left: > > > [ 1314s] FAILED: cd /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/stage2/test

Hi, Recent trunk has a lot of failures on PPC64/Linux. One seems to be crash with a backtrace like: [ 3149s] -- [ 3149s] 0 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0b864 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*) + 4294746876 [ 3149s] 1 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0bb1c [ 3149s] 2 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0c520 [ 3149s] 3 linux-vdso64.so.1 0x00003fff7f7b0478 __kernel_sigtramp_rt64 + 0 [ 3149s] 4

Hi, On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 3/26/2014 8:04 AM, İsmail Dönmez wrote: > >> >> Recent trunk has a lot of failures on PPC64/Linux. One seems to be crash >> with a backtrace like: >> > > Is this with "make check"? I can try it on my G5/FreeBSD box when I get > home make

On Mar 26, 2014, at 6:56 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 3/26/2014 11:39 AM, İsmail Dönmez wrote: >> >> make check-all but yes make check would suffice. Thanks! > > I see two reported failures: > > > FAIL: LLVM :: BugPoint/compile-custom.ll (459 of 9992) > ******************** TEST 'LLVM ::

Thanks a lot for the reference how to make the regtest. One last question please, if understand this correctly, the --use-ntvfs isnot available by default when installing the Debian package, so I need to compile samba with --with-ntvfs-fileserver to make the option available? On 11/14/19 8:52 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 07:30 +0000, Ghassan Elrayah wrote: >> Hi,

Dear all, It was a pleasure to meet you at Iowa State University. Two days ago I submitted two experimental packages to CRAN (hope it will be there soon): rindex: quick indexing of large objects (currently only character, see ?index) regtest: some first support for automated regression testing (heavily used in \dontshow{} section of ?index) With rindex you can for example i <-

...sts. > I'll be happy to regenerate the coverage on request, it only takes > an hour or so, and isn't a lot of actual work. This is pretty spiffy. I'm (pleasantly) surprised we have 81.8% coverage for instcombine. It would be a specific case where it would be good to add regtests to try to get to 100%, given how tricky the code is. It would also be nice if your scripts covered autogenerated code like the tblgen produced files in the backend. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-...

Hello, After a fun discussion regarding unit testing and coverage metrics, it came up that we don't have coverage analysis for LLVM proper. With a certain amount of experience in this arena, I set about building a nice overview. I don't have the toolset and commands fully integrated into the build system, and I'm not sure if doing so would be appropriate (its a somewhat fragile and

...gt; thing. But if someone's already done this I'd rather not duplicate > the > effort. In theory, it should be pretty easy to create a new DependenceAnalysis analysis class and start piping it around. It would be nice if there was a trivial implementation so that we can write regtests. -Chris

On Monday 18 August 2008 17:48, David Greene wrote: > > Normally, the conversion to SSA form is sufficient. Can you talk > > about cases where this matters to you? > > Mostly it involves tying into our memory dependence analysis which > annotates things on program points. I need a way to translate back > to our optimizer data structures. > > So it's not

Yeah, you will need to do that. Even for the supported default fileserver, the module we use in testing 'vfs_fake_acls' is only provided to developers, so that will be the easiest route to start. When we eventually remove it, come back and we will find a way to keep this working for you. Andrew Bartlett On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 07:59 +0000, Ghassan Elrayah via samba wrote: > Thanks a

On Monday 18 August 2008 17:21, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 18, 2008, at 3:19 PM, David Greene wrote: > > I'm not quite understanding how one would use the existing alias > > analysis > > framework to represent a flow-sensitive analysis. > > Yep, the current infrastructure isn't set up to support this. > > I haven't seen a real world case where flow

Thanks for the feedback thus far! I've updated the header file, and enclosed a complete patch against LLVM. This passes all the regtests, and I'll be doing more thorough testing of LLVM itself with the patch. I've included some basic unit tests, but could probably do more here... Not sure it's worth delaying the initial submission though, as the best testing is to use a hash testing suite... I've addressed the comme...

...meone's already done this I'd rather not duplicate >> the >> effort. > > In theory, it should be pretty easy to create a new DependenceAnalysis > analysis class and start piping it around. It would be nice if there > was a trivial implementation so that we can write regtests. > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed.....