similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Release Branch Regressions

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] LLVM Release Branch Regressions"

2005 Nov 07
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.6 Release Branch
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 $PATH. Can you verify that the configure script works for you without the --with-f2c option?
2005 May 13
2
[LLVMdev] Current Regressions
Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > >> Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed >> below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few >> days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all >> who've helped fix things. >> >> We would like to try to get as many
2004 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] opt, llcc, ll++, -O1, -O2, -O3
Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >>For example: >>$ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > > BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy > of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? > > The invocation of > > $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe > > does not produce native assebler output as one might expect.
2005 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.6 Release Branch
>> 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. I get the error with and without the --with-f2c option. I never used the NAG Fotran
2005 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] Current Regressions
Dear All, Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all who've helped fix things. We would like to try to get as many of these fixed as possible before I create the release branch (still scheduled for tomorrow, Friday). I'll
2005 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] PowerPC Regressions for LLVM 1.6
Dear All, Thanks to the testing done by Bill Wendling, we have the following list of regressions for PPC: TEST (cbe) 'exception_spec_test' FAILED! ******************** TEST (cbe) 'function_try_block' FAILED! ******************** Oopack (jit, llc, and cbe) also fails, but I don't know if that's a regression or not. I'm alright with releasing with these regressions
2006 Apr 25
0
[LLVMdev] src to src conversion
Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am trying to use LLVM as a source to source C compiler. I use > llvm-gcc to convert file.c->file.bc. Then I use opt to run my own > compiler passes to convert file.bc->file.opt.bc. Then I use llc to > convert file.opt.bc->file.opt.c. Now, I want to use normal gcc to > compile file.opt.c into an executable. However, I'm getting the
2005 Nov 01
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM Release Branch
Dear All, Do people think that they are ready to create the LLVM 1.6 release branch? I believe all the development is pretty much done. Is all the documentation in the LLVM source tree updated and ready? I'm not able to make a full doc review like I've been able to do in previous releases, so I need volunteers to work on the docs if they're not done yet. -- John T. -- John
2005 Jun 29
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.5 C Front-End Binaries for FreeBSD?
Sean Peisert wrote: > John, > > I may be missing something here, but if I the compilation docs, I need > to build LLVM first and the C frontend second. But doing this, I > get: > > **llvm-gcc/llvm-g++ was not found, > > (obviously -- it wasn't installed, right?) You do need to build LLVM first before building llvm-gcc. This may seem a bit weird, but
2004 Jan 07
2
[LLVMdev] Services Restored
Dear LLVM Developers, The LLVM website, CVS repository, and SAFECode website should now be back online. Should you encounter any problems with the LLVM services, please send email to llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu so that we may fix it. Regards, John T. Criswell ********************************************************************* * John T. Criswell Email: criswell at uiuc.edu
2005 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.6 Release Branch
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
2005 Nov 07
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.6 Release Branch
Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, John Criswell wrote: > >> 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
2005 May 16
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.5 Release Branch Created
Dear All, I created the LLVM 1.5 release branch this afternoon. It is called release_15. I would prefer that people hold off on committing non-release changes to the mainline until after the release is complete (as people sometimes request that I fold more mainline changes into the branch). However, if you need to commit something, you can do so. Within the next day or two, I'll be
2004 Jan 10
0
[LLVMdev] Services Restored
Hi, It looks like the CVS server is still not available. When I try to update with cvs, I get: cvs [update aborted]: connect to llvm-cvs.cs.uiuc.edu(128.174.245.58):2401 failed: Connection refused I know the server was down earlier this week but according to the message below, its supposted to be restored by now. Could someone please help? Thanks, Reid. On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 14:30, John T.
2005 Oct 20
3
[LLVMdev] Release Branch for llvm-gcc
Dear All, I would like to create the release branch for the llvm-gcc source code tomorrow morning. I imagine this will be okay as llvm-gcc seems pretty healthy and no one is currently doing any development on it. If there's something that needs to be fixed, or you're working on llvm-gcc, please email the list so that I can delay creating the branch as appropriate. I won't be
2004 Jul 26
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM Server Back Up
Dear All, Our main server is back up, and all LLVM services (CVS, website, etc) should be up and available for use. If you notice that something is wrong, please send an email to llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu. Thanks! -- John T. -- ********************************************************************* * John T. Criswell Email: criswell at uiuc.edu * * Research Programmer
2006 Apr 25
4
[LLVMdev] src to src conversion
On Apr 25, 2006, at 8:56 AM, John Criswell wrote: > Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am trying to use LLVM as a source to source C compiler. I use >> llvm-gcc to convert file.c->file.bc. Then I use opt to run my own >> compiler passes to convert file.bc->file.opt.bc. Then I use llc >> to convert file.opt.bc->file.opt.c. Now, I want to use normal gcc
2005 May 17
2
[LLVMdev] Testing Release 1.5
Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 17, John Criswell wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>I've finished building binaries for the GCC frontends and am now testing >> the 1.5 release branch on i386/Linux, Sparc/Solaris, and PowerPC/MacOS X. >> >>I'm looking for volunteers to test LLVM 1.5 on platforms that we don't >>have in house. I'm
2005 Jun 28
2
[LLVMdev] Re: llvm linux/PPC cfrontend
Cyrille Mescam wrote: > Morning, > > I would like to know if you received my mail with the assembly code > you wanted. > > It not, i'll send it again to you. > > Thanks for your help. > > Regards. > > Cyrille > I've looked into the files you sent me, and it seems that the problem is occuring due to the C library simplication pass (which is run
2005 Nov 15
3
[LLVMdev] Moving CVS Files
Chris Morgan wrote: > Any reason not to upgrade to subversion? It does a much better job > with handling moved or renamed files although svn doesn't actually > store a 'move' or a 'rename' as a single versioned operation. We discussed moving to another revision control system about a year ago, if I recall correctly. At that time, we decided not to move to another