search for: testbase

...iate output: SKIP chown (Can't chown (probably need root)) The problem that you might notice if you have had your coffee already this morning is that it is attempting to cat the file WITH quotations. The line that causes the problem is line 233 of runtests.sh: echo "SKIP $testbase (`cat \"$scratchdir/whyskipped\"`)" This is a POSIXLY_CORRECT behavior on part of the OpenBSD sh according to the sh man page which has a specific section on it: o Occurrences of \" inside double quoted `..` command substitutions. In POSIX mode, the \" is...

...t; Uses; for (unsigned i = 0; i != Num; ++i) { unsigned FromResNo = From[i].getResNo(); SDNode *FromNode = From[i].getNode(); #ifndef NDEBUG assert(FromNode->getOpcode() != ISD::DELETED_NODE && "FromNode deleted!"); #endif This triggers all over the place in the testbase. Is it expected that we could get a deleted node here? The following code appears to assume FromNode is a valid SDNode. -Dave

I am trying to connect to multiple databases, and have setup an abstract class with a call to establish_connection: class TestBase < ActiveRecord::Base self.abstract_class = true end TestBase.establish_connection( :adapter => "mysql", :host => "host", :username => "user", :password => "pass", :database => "db" ) class Ta...

Hello there, I had some software working under Wine 1.1.35 (Testbase - a database of questions for schools). Now I am up to 1.1.44, my installation does not work (in a bottle made with winebottler). I get these errors: OLE error 80004005 and Exception EExternalException in module ntdll at 0001F977 External exception C0000025 in addition to this, X11 crashes each...

...2009 15:17, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. > > > > $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc > > Seems due to David's patches. Ok. Send me a testcase and I will fix. This should be put into the testbase. -Dave

...09:55:32 David Greene wrote: > In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing in > SelectionDAG, I added the following assert > toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: Here's a patch to add more of these deleted node asserts. They fire tons of times in the testbase. This concerns me greatly. Are all of these asserts valid? If not, we should document why with comments in the source. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sdassert.patch Type: text/x-patch Size:...

...>>${log} 2>&1 || failed=YES if [ -z "${failed}" ] ; then rm $log *** runtests.sh.orig Fri Sep 7 01:57:10 2001 --- runtests.sh Fri Nov 30 11:42:31 2001 *************** *** 183,189 **** if sh $RUNSHFLAGS "$testscript" then ! echo "----- $testbase completed succesfully" passed=`expr $passed + 1` else case $? in --- 183,189 ---- if sh $RUNSHFLAGS "$testscript" then ! echo "----- $testbase completed successfully" passed=`expr $passed + 1` else case $? in

...> > In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing in > > SelectionDAG, I added the following assert > > toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: > > Here's a patch to add more of these deleted node asserts. They fire > tons of times in the testbase. Ping? Just want to make sure this didn't get missed somehow. I'm surprised to see no discussion. -Dave

...LLVM against those files. I like this idea. It'll work for C/C++ but not Fortran. Since there is no Fortran ABI one has to link with our Fortran compiler & libraries to get an executable that actually works. But let me think about this some more. I would really like to expand the LLVM testbase if we can. It will be a long process since I'll have to get all these tests approved for release. I can't give a timeline on that at all. I think it will be a very gradual process. > To be fair, the reason that my patch was not accepted was because it > caused test-suite failures...

...t; I like this idea. It'll work for C/C++ but not Fortran. Since there > is no Fortran ABI one has to link with our Fortran compiler & > libraries to get an executable that actually works. > > But let me think about this some more. I would really like to expand > the LLVM testbase if we can. It will be a long process since I'll > have to get all these tests approved for release. I can't give a > timeline on that at all. I think it will be a very gradual process. Out of curiosity, what is your current thinking on this? -Hal > > > To be fair, th...

> Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. > > $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc Seems due to David's patches. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc ... BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry Live Ins: %LR %R7 %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 STR %LR<kill>, %SP, %reg0, 4, 14, %reg0; mem:ST4[0 llc 0x008b3304 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 45 1 llc 0x008b390c

...to try to track down problems we're seeing >>> in >>> SelectionDAG, I added the following assert >>> toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: >> >> Here's a patch to add more of these deleted node asserts. They fire >> tons of times in the testbase. > > Ping? Just want to make sure this didn't get missed somehow. I'm > surprised to see no discussion. I've now looked at your latest patch. In summary, it does expose a subtle problem. I haven't seen anything that here would lead to observable misbehavior yet though....

> > So I think it should be at the discretion of port to enable or disable > > such optimizations as needed. > > While that it a valid approach in general, it is completely at odds > with the approach that the LLVM codebase has taken. The general LLVM > philosophy is that all optimizations should be as aggressive as > possible at whatever they do, and it is then the

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 05:20:43PM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > As I see it, there are regulary commits that introduce performance and > > code size regressions. There doesn't seem to be any formal testing in > > place. Not for X86, not for ARM. Hunting down regressions like > >

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc2 was tagged yesterday from the release_90 branch at r368683. In the Git monorepo it's available as the llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2 tag. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc2 Binaries will be added as they become available. The tag went in roughly one week behind schedule (see "Upcoming Releases" at https://llvm.org), but

Hi everyone, 9.0.0-rc1 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r367217 (tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc1 in the Git monorepo). Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc1 Binaries will be added as they become available. Please file bug reports for any issues you find as blockers of https://llvm.org/PR42474 Release testers: please start your engines, run the

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

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

I took the output of clang, simplified it, and used it as a testbase. Essentially, there is one class with one virtual function; I create an instance and call the virtual method all in one function: ; The TestVirtual class vtbl @classvtbl.TestVirtual = constant %classvtbltype.TestVirtual { ; Pointers to the virtual methods for the TestVirtual class ... } ; ......