similar to: Enable STATISTIC all the time again?

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I think adding an option to cmake is fine, but it should definitely be off > by default in release builds. > Why? > If we make STATISTIC useful, then people will eventually put it on some > hot path, and that will kill multi-threaded performance for users like > ThinLTO, because multiple threads

Hi all, Now, four backends (if I am counting right: X86, ARM, AArch64, AMDGPU) are working on bringing-up GlobalISel, I’d like to switch the default of the LLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL variable in CMake, such that the framework gets built by default. ** Impact of Flipping the Switch ** * Upsides * For people developing on GlobalISel, it will: - Simplify the CMake command to type :) - Build/Test

Hi Adhemerval, Some UBSan tests are timing out randomly. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-aarch64-full ex: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-aarch64-full/builds/902 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-aarch64-full/builds/894 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-aarch64-full/builds/906

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/17/2013 12:15 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > >> >> Give a compelling argument and I might :) >> > > The cost is the extra time spent verifying that the binaries are fresh. > In my experience it has never happened that I ran "make check" on a wrong >

Dear testers, 3.7.0-rc1 was just tagged; please start your testing engines :-) Upload binaries to the sftp and report your results to this thread. I'm sorry for the delay between branching and tagging. The changes to the release script took a little longer than I hoped. Thanks for helping with the release, and do let me know of any issues, questions, etc. The tracking bug for release

On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/17/2013 12:15 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > Give a compelling argument and I might :) > > The cost is the extra time spent verifying that the binaries are fresh. In my

Hi Michael, > On Jan 13, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > > As a person not developing on GlobalISel, I can already play with it by setting the flag. ;-) > > The main (and huge) benefit I see is that it will get tested by default. I agree. > So, I think it's mainly a question of maturity - if my (non-GlobalISel) change breaks

Folks, As of this run: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/746 There are three classes of failures that need fixing before we get the bot green: 1. AddressSanitizer.BuiltinLongJmpTest Unit Test Two configurations fail: * Asan-arm-inline-Test * Asan-arm-with-calls-Test I wonder what's the best way to run it individually and reduce the error. I'm not

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc3 was tagged today from the release_90 branch at r370450. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc3 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are currently no open release blockers, which means if nothing new comes up, the final release could ship soon and this is

I've finished my initial set of patches to make 32-byte shadow granularity work on x86. Here is a summary of the changes from last week: - As discussed, I added a full redzone after every stack variable. - We discussed adding a -fsanitize-address-granularity=N flag, but I found the following existing flag has been sufficient for my purposes: -asan-mapping-scale N. If anyone thinks I

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 20 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >>> On 17 Jul 2015, at 01:09, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu,

Hi, I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a reminder, when doing regression testing, use the 3.7.0 release as your baseline. Thanks, Tom

On 15 January 2015 at 13:35, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > AArch64 tested and uploaded. ARMv7 in progress. Hi Hans, ARMv7 is giving me a bit of a headache... I've tried building on two different machines and I get the same error... Phase 2 completes successfully, but while building Phase 3, I get the error on *every* file: 1.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:44:01AM -0700, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote: > On 31 May 2017 at 08:17, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > If your concern is the atomic increments, then is there a reason to not have > > it do the counting as a runtime option instead of a compile time one? > > Or increment into TLS variables and sum

Hi Kostya, Alex, Some changes in the sanitizers made this test start passing: TestCases/Posix/start-deactivated.cc http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/4277 It passes on both ARM and Thumb, both NEON and non-NEON. Should we mark is as PASS now? Or is that a fluke? cheers, --renato

On 22 August 2014 01:48, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > No specific comments at the moment, but I do want to say that I very much believe this is worth pursuing. Better testing infrastructure for remote targets will be an absolutely fantastic improvement. Thank you and Dan both for pushing forward on the topic. +1 I remember Greg (cc'd) did some of that in

Hi all, We had some internal discussions about flipping the default for O0 and we concluded that we wanted to postpone it. *** Why Is That? *** We don’t want to send the wrong message that GlobalISel’s design is set in stone and ready for broader adoption. In particular, 1. The APIs are still evolving and can still possibly change significantly 2. The TableGen backend to reuse the existing SD

On 4/17/2013 12:15 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > Give a compelling argument and I might :) The cost is the extra time spent verifying that the binaries are fresh. In my experience it has never happened that I ran "make check" on a wrong set of binaries. On the other hand, it does happen that I run "make check" repeatedly, when working on a testcase (or a set of

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/17/2013 11:50 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> Because almost no other piece of software out there doesn't have >> 'check' depend on rebuilding the target it's testing and it's bitten >> people whereas other than the lameness of our build system

2015-08-29 14:45 GMT+08:00 Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>: > Why are there two ways to compile LLVM? >> make and cmake! >> What's the difference of those two ways? > > > make and cmake are used together not separately. > cmake is a high level generator that creates a makefile for make > > I compile llvm according to this website(