similar to: [LLVMdev] Cygwin debug build results

Your "make check" output has two classes of errors: 1. llvm-gcc or llvm-g++ not being found. Its possible this results from Cygwin requiring the .exe extension. The makefiles probably need to be enhanced to include the suffix. 2. You have a permissions problem on: test/Regression/Analysis/Andersens/Output/basictest.ll.out.script. The file couldn't be opened for writing. Possibly

>Your "make check" output has two classes of errors: >1. llvm-gcc or llvm-g++ not being found. Its possible this results from >Cygwin requiring the .exe extension. The makefiles probably need to be >enhanced to include the suffix. Okay, but that did not seem to be a problem before. I thought about that being a possible problem. The make install removes the .exe

Reid, Heres the results, even better than before :- # of expected passes 1759 # of unexpected failures 12 # of expected failures 56 Previous working build :- # of expected passes 1736 # of unexpected failures 16 # of expected failures 56 Goodie, now for a release build. Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

After a make clean on test we are getting :- # of expected passes 1766 # of unexpected failures 12 # of expected failures 55 Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050603/ab431a62/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and

Much better. Although it looks like I have a library problem though. There are by the look of it a few more errors too. # of expected passes 1736 # of unexpected failures 16 # of expected failures 56 Looks like the patch has nearly got it. Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: makecheck.txt URL:

>> This is what I am getting back from 'make check' :- >> >> # of expected passes 1710 >> # of unexpected failures 49 >> # of expected failures 55 >> >> Is this normal and "expected" ? > > No. From this output: > > ... > Files/ATI: not found > ... > > My guess is that you have

This is what I am getting back from 'make check' :- === Summary === # of expected passes 1710 # of unexpected failures 49 # of expected failures 55 Is this normal and "expected" ? Full results attached. Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: makecheck.txt URL:

>Okay, this is looking much better. I'll commit the configure script. Great, that did the job. >There's a couple of CFrontEnd failures. Possibly you're not working with >the latest llvm-gcc? (built from CVS?) checkout today about 16:00 GMT >The others are known JIT failures on Cygwin .. it can't load symbols >from the LLI executable. We don't have a fix for

Is it ok sending this results for FreeBSD5.1 at daily/weekly based to this mail list? Now results. Big improvement in llvm tests results from last test result sended. New regressions: Regression.Assembler.ConstantExprFold : FAIL , expected PASS Regression.CodeGen.Generic.2004-04-09-SameValueCoalescing: FAIL , expected PASS Regression.Transforms.PRE.basictest : FAIL

2012/10/12 Emilien Kia <kiae.dev at gmail.com> > Hi guys, > Hi Emilien and the list, This is a pull request to finally merge NSS feature in nut trunk: > https://github.com/clepple/nut/pull/3 > I'd like to take a moment to shed some more light on this important development, which lasted 3 years: - the initial

Thanks Vladimir. That's great! Glad you got it working. BTW, the failures you're seeing have been experienced by Chris and I as well. Chris is diligently working on making the LLVM processing more consistent so he track down the problem. A week ago or so, these tests passed at 100%. Reid. On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 15:50, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > In attached file. > > Vladimir

In attached file. Vladimir -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: test2004_06_20.log Type: application/octet-stream Size: 88488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040620/98042f01/attachment.obj>

Hi, I have problems to install samba 2.0.3 in Digital 4.0. Please, could somebody help me? (I don't know if I'm giving enouth information to identify the problem) In another server I'm using samba-1.9.18p8 and it works well. It's really interesting to install the 2 version? Thanks, Javi. The following is the information:--------------------------- The two fist steps of

This message is in MIME format --_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:990413120342:8241=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii R 0.64.0 on RedHat Linux 5.1 I decided to add a "make check" command in the R RPM spec file to ensure that R works properly before packaging it up. I found (by sabotaging one of the *.Rout.save files) that errors found by "make check" are ignored and do not

This message is in MIME format --_=XFMail.1.3.p0.Linux:990413120342:8241=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii R 0.64.0 on RedHat Linux 5.1 I decided to add a "make check" command in the R RPM spec file to ensure that R works properly before packaging it up. I found (by sabotaging one of the *.Rout.save files) that errors found by "make check" are ignored and do not

On 11/10/2015 1:07 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:41:06AM -0600, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >> I have a customer testcase where SROA splits a volatile memcpy and we end up >> generating bad code[1]. While this looks like a bug, simply preventing SROA >> from splitting volatile memory intrinsics causes basictest.ll for SROA

Hi all, After successfully building llvm tools-only and cfontend, I went back to llvm directory and ran configure --with-llvmgccdir=$CFEINSTALL Unfortunately, at the end of the process I got the following configure: WARNING: ***** llvm C/C++ front end was not found, or does not configure: WARNING: ***** appear to be working. And I do have CFEINSTALL environment variable.... BTW, I have noticed

Hi, I have a customer testcase where SROA splits a volatile memcpy and we end up generating bad code[1]. While this looks like a bug, simply preventing SROA from splitting volatile memory intrinsics causes basictest.ll for SROA to fail. Not only that, but it also seems like handling of volatile memory transfers was done with some intent. What are the design decisions in SROA regarding

Hi all, Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error during compilation on PPC: /Volumes/SandBox/Clean/llvm-9999-01.roots/llvm-9999-01~obj/src/llvm/lib/Analysis/IPA/Andersens.cpp: In function 'void dumpToDOUT(llvm::SparseBitVector<128u>*)': /Volumes/SandBox/Clean/llvm-9999-01.roots/llvm-9999-01~obj/src/llvm/lib/Analysis/IPA/Andersens.cpp:1189: error: no

The utils/NewNightlyTest.pl script seems to use LLVMGCCDIR in a way that is inconsistent with the top-level configure script. I would like to fix this but I don't want to break everyone's nightly tests. Can someone review the attached patch to make sure I'm not missing something? The NewNightlyTest.pl script checks the LLVMGCCDIR environment variable and uses it for two