search for: vacopi

Hi, Its that time of the year again. Here is the results on openSUSE 13.1 PPC64. Total of 3 failures which seems to be due the same problem (the value in brackets is the time counter from the build system): [ 3468s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc32-vacopy.ll:21:10: error: expected string not found in input [ 3468s] ; CHECK: lwz [[REG3:[0-9]+]], {{.*}} [ 3468s]

İsmai, Thanks for testing these. Can you please file a bug report (and CC me on it), and attach the full output of these failing tests? (When the test fails you should see the full command -- rerun it without piping the output into FileCheck). Thanks again, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing

Hello > What does these mean? The bytecode contains call to intrinsic, which is not supported by by MSIL backend. The only intrinsics currently supported 'natively' are vastart, vaend, vacopy. You might want to extend MSILWriter to use default intrinsic lowering mechanism, however, don't expect, that you'll have something workable - in general, you cannot just grab .c file,

At the LLVM Developers' Meeting in November, I promised to work on isolating a subset of the current test suite that is useful for benchmarking. Having looked at this in more detail, most of the applications and benchmarks in the test suite are useful for benchmarking, and so I think that a better way of phrasing it is that we should construct a list of programs in the test suite that are not

Hello; I was able to build and install llvm(3.0) under Ubuntu 11.10 (using the ./configure script found under llvm source, and then make and make install). While configuring, I gave --prefix as a directory where I would like llvm to be installed. I did not give --with-llvmgccdir and the --enable-optimized argument to configure. Because 3.0 doesn't come with llvmgcc source/binaries and I

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Hi, LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results: Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4) Release mode, but with assertions enabled LLVM srcdir == objdir # of expected passes 2250 # of expected failures 5 I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC, so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff" test the machine was swapping

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tanya, > >> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects >> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- >> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. > > I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. > Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > Ok.

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

Hi Stepan, Sorry for the delay. It's great that you are working on MergeFunctions as well and I agree, we should definitely try to combine our efforts to improve MergeFunctions. Just to give you some context, the pass (with the similar function merging patch) is already being used in a production setting. From my point of view, it would be better if we focus on improving its capability

Hello Sean and Tobias, Sean, Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me links to your discussion, so I could adapt my ideas to it. Tobias, Your patch fails on several modules in my benchmark (73 of ~1800 tests). I have sent one as attachment. See statistics files for more details, all the .ll files you could simply find in test-suite object directory (after