search for: shtests

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 21 matches for "shtests".

Did you mean: shtest
2018 Jul 20
2
Marking lit::shtest-format.py unsupported on PS4?, Re: buildbot failure in LLVM on llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-ubuntu-fast
FWIW, I've seen it fail on some of my commits too, but I don't remember whether it was on the PS4 bot exclusively or not. Anyway, my understanding is that this test shouldn't inherently have different behaviour on PS4 specifically, but I could be mistaken. I suspect it's something more general to do with the configuration of the bot. James On 20 July 2018 at 03:52, Justin Bogner
2018 Jul 20
2
Marking lit::shtest-format.py unsupported on PS4?, Re: buildbot failure in LLVM on llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-ubuntu-fast
Should "lit :: shtest-format.py" (from check-lit) be marked unsupported on PS4? It seems flakey there. This evening, it failed on my commit, r337514, and I'm fairly confident it wasn't my commit's fault. Then it recovered on the next commit. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-ubuntu-fast/builds/33502
2009 Oct 19
1
About DISK space of OCFS2.
Hi ALL I have a question about DISK space of OCFS2. I copy a file by a "cp" command after check the DISK space by "df -k" command. There is no change when I cheked the DISK space by "df -k"command again. I show below an procedure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- root at CPU_N:/fm/bbb> ls -l total 3 -rwxr-xr-x 1
2018 Jul 17
2
lld/mach-o x86_64 asserts
Got it. Attached are both the testcase & the fix. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 12:06, Carlo Kok via llvm-dev wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, at 16:45, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 PM Carlo Kok via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > That sounds quite reasaonable; how does one usually go about doing that?
2018 Jul 30
3
lld/mach-o x86_64 asserts
Sorry, I was thinking to review the test but didn't. Is this test complete? It does invoke lld, but it didn't verify its output. On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:03 PM Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping Rui. Is there anything else that needs to be done on this patch? > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Carlo Kok via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at
2020 Sep 17
3
Timeout tests timing out
Hi David, Unfortunately writing a reliable test is tricky given that the functionality we're trying to test involves timing. I would advise against disabling the test entirely because it actually tests functionality that people use. I'd suggest bumping up the time limits. This is what I've done in the past. See commit 6dfcc78364fa3e8104d6e6634733863eb0bf4be8 Author: Dan Liew <dan
2015 Nov 14
3
[lit] RFC: Per test timeout
...s with my implementation. Currently in lit you can set a global timeout for all of the tests but not for each individual test. The attached patches add * Support for a new ResultCode called TIMEOUT * A new command line option --max-individual-test-time * Support for running external and internal ShTests with a per test timeout * Support for running GTests with a per test timeout I wanted to get some initial feedback on the implementation. * If a timeout is requested the Python psutil module is required. This module does not ship with Python but is availble via pip (or on Linux your distribut...
2016 Jan 14
4
LLVM-LIT config documentation?
Dear all, Recently I've considering using LIT for my benchmark testing framework, and the only reference for LLVM-LIT is the man page and some READMEs. I don't find any documentations on config, which seems to be quite important to the tool. If I use lit outside LLVM source tree and use on my own test files, LIT marks them as 'unresolved'. So are there any documentations I can
2018 Jul 11
2
lld/mach-o x86_64 asserts
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 PM Carlo Kok via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > That sounds quite reasaonable; how does one usually go about doing that? a repro zip that hits both asserts? > You can take inspiration from anything in lld/test, but basically either an assembly source (or multiple) passed through llvm-mc and then lld, or a YAML file passed to yaml2obj
2015 Nov 15
2
[lit] RFC: Per test timeout
...dual-test-time > > > I think you should call it `--timeout=`, and then say in the description that it's a per-test timeout. I agree a shorter name would be nicer. I'm worried about it being confused with --max-time though. > >> * Support for running external and internal ShTests with a per test timeout >> * Support for running GTests with a per test timeout >> > > This must be the missing piece... I couldn't get my implementation to work without resorting to Python 3.x features (which is incompatible with a 2.x minimum version). I did do brief testi...
2015 Aug 05
3
lit improvement
Hi, Me and my supervisor are interested in improving llvm's lit a little bit. Currently, there are few things, that seem to be not very convenient about the tool: * Having several RUN commands in a failing test, it's impossible to figure out, which of them actually caused the test to fail. We can output the number of the failing RUN line. * It would be nice to
2020 Sep 10
2
Timeout tests timing out
The clang-cmake-armv8-lld (linaro-toolchain owners) buildbot is timing out trying to run some timeout tests (Dan Liew author): Pass: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv8-lld/builds/5672 Fail: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv8-lld/builds/5673 Is there anything we can do to the buildbot? Or the tests? (bump up the time limits or maybe remove the tests as
2020 Sep 18
2
Timeout tests timing out
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 22:24, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > I appreciate the value of the feature - but it's possible the test > doesn't pull its weight. Is the code that implements the feature > liable to failure/often touched? If it's pretty static/failure is > unlikely, possibly the time and flaky failures aren't worth the value > of
2018 May 06
3
[clang] Running a single testcase
Hi, while experimenting with llvmlinux on Debian/testing AMD64 I wanted to run some x86-64 ASM tests. I fell over [1] and wanted to run it. So, I cloned clang from Git... $ git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang.git I looked through some docs where I have seen I need "llvm-lit" or "lit.py". The Debian package llvm-7-tools from <apt.llvm.org> does ship
2017 May 31
1
Running lit (googletest) tests remotely
> On May 31, 2017, at 4:06 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote: > > Thank you all for the pointers. I am going to look at these to see if > there is anything that we could reuse, and come back. In the mean > time, I'll reply to Mathiass's comments: > > On 26 May 2017 at 19:11, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: >>> Based on a
2018 May 07
0
[clang] Running a single testcase
The simplest way to run a clang test case that I know of is to clone both llvm and clang repos, run all the tests, then run an individual test. IIRC like so: git clone llvm ...... cd llvm/tools git clone clang ..... cd ../../ mkdir build cd build cmake ../llvm ninja check-clang ./bin/llvm-lit -v ./tools/clang/test/Sema/asm.c On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev <
2018 May 07
2
[clang] Running a single testcase
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:52 AM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > The simplest way to run a clang test case that I know of is to clone both > llvm and clang repos, run all the tests, then run an individual test. > > IIRC like so: > > git clone llvm ...... > cd llvm/tools > git clone clang ..... > cd ../../ > mkdir build > cd build > cmake
2017 Nov 25
2
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
Hi Zachary: I was able to reproduce the greendragon results locally (OSX), and fix the problem by excluding 'debuginfo-tests' from check-clang -- this prevents them from being added twice, once for check-clang and again for check-debuginfo. Below are the minimized patches I used to reproduce and fix the problem -- based on your originals. I've verified these patches work when
2017 Dec 06
3
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Can I have some assurance that if it fails again, someone will look into who has access to the builders so I don't have to keep doing speculative commits? Sure. I did this last time and I promise to also do it this time. -- adrian > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM Adrian Prantl
2017 Dec 06
2
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Adrian, Mike, Chris? Any update on this? I've temporarily switched to working on something different, but I plan to be back on this in a couple of weeks. It's been a month since my first revert of this CL, which seems like a reasonable amount of lead-time to deal with issues surrounding