similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-test portability failures

Ignore the missing malloc.h errors. I screwed up badly. I was undoing my alloca.h hack and removed the wrong file. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:29:43 -0800 Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > After going through 17000+ lines of output, I come up with the following... > > =========================================== > > In file included from

I updated my source tree and after putting malloc.h back things look a lot better. Still getting a large number of JIT-only failures. There is now only one assertion failure: /home/cfe/x86/llvm-gcc/bin/g++ -I/usr/home/llvm/obj/projects/llvm-test/MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city -I/usr/home/llvm/obj/projects/llvm-test/../../../projects/llvm-test/MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I updated my source tree and after putting malloc.h back things look a lot better. Still getting a large number of JIT-only failures. There is now only one assertion failure: > > /home/cfe/x86/llvm-gcc/bin/g++ -I/usr/home/llvm/obj/projects/llvm-test/MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city

Hi Tanya, Here's my second attempt on Fedora Core 5. The changes this time are: 1. Using GCC 4.0.3 as the compiler 2. Building everything from source (no pre-built binaries used) BUILD LLVM WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues, just the usual warnings. BUILD LLVM-GCC WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues RUN LLVM-TEST WITH GCC 4.0.3 * The following failures were encountered. Some of them are

Tanya, Here's the results for GNU/Linux, 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5smp (Fedora Core 5) HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS * The llvm-1.9.tar.gz file unpacks to a dir named "llvm". Shouldn't that be llvm-1.9? * LLVM was built in Release mode in all cases * I don't think this is ready for release. In particular the llvm-gcc4 binary seg faults on FC 5 for most of llvm-test programs. *

On 03/17/2010 10:12 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ > > You will also find the source tarballs there as well. > > We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help > test 2.7 if you can. Please follow these instructions to test 2.7: > > /To test llvm-gcc:/

On Mar 24, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > On 03/17/2010 10:12 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: >> http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ >> >> You will also find the source tarballs there as well. >> >> We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help >> test 2.7 if you

LLVMers, The LLVM 1.9 Prerelease is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.9/ If anyone can spare some time, please download the appropriate tarballs for your platform and test the release (at least with make check). I'd also appreciate any documentation reviews. Please note that llvm-gcc3 on x86 may not have a clean dejagnu run. You should see one XPASS for

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

The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ You will also find the source tarballs there as well. We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help test 2.7 if you can. Please follow these instructions to test 2.7: To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it

Everything builds fine on sparc. The configure script needs to be fixed though (see previous email). Sparc testing results: make check: # of expected passes 1189 # of expected failures 34 Regressions Single Source: None New Failures Single Source (new tests): 2005-05-12-Int64ToFP: llc,jit Regressions MultiSource: Applications/d/make_dparser: llc, cbe, jit

Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Everything builds fine on sparc. The configure script needs to be fixed > though (see previous email). I'm not getting the error with the configure script (on Kain, anyway). I've tried it with --with-f2c and with f96 (NAG Fortran compiler) in and out of my $PATH. Can you verify that the configure script works for you without the --with-f2c option?

A big compile time regression. Any ideas? Ciao, Duncan. On 22/07/11 19:13, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/253/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 253 0 2011-07-22 16:22:04

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

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >

Hi Tanya, I've been checking the state of the various llvm-test failures on X86/Linux with GCC 3.4.6 and llvm-gcc4. I haven't finished this, but I thought the following might be useful for other people that are testing the release on Linux. Each group of failing tests below is followed by a comment about why its failing. llc /MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc jit

Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? -bw On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Bill, > Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. Ciao, Duncan. > > -bw > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Did

Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> 1. I'm still looking for volunteers to test MacOS X and Solaris. >> If you'd like to volunteer, please email the list to let us know. > > > I'll do minimal testing on Sparc. I'm not going to look into any > regressions though since no one has been really watching Sparc since I > graduated and I am sure there are

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