similar to: [LLVMdev] 1.9 Branch Creation TONIGHT 9PM PST

Tanya Lattner wrote: > I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, > which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the > appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot > of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision > carefully and before the 1.4 release. > > Here are the

I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision carefully and before the 1.4 release. Here are the pros and cons in my eyes, please feel free to add your

LLVMers, I will be creating the branch in 30 minutes (9PM PDT). At that time, I will send out mail announcing SVN commit access is suspended. Those with commit privileges should refrain from committing until I send out mail saying commit access is restored. Thanks, Tanya Lattner

LLVM Developers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 2.0 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before

From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; others are features that we haven't added yet (or may never add). In DejaGNU, the result for such tests will be XFAIL (eXpected FAILure). In this way, you can tell the difference between an expected and unexpected failure. The tests in the test suite have no such feature at

LLVMers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 1.9 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before the

This is just a reminder that I will be creating the 1.8 release branch in 1 hour. Please refrain from checking into cvs after 9PM PDT until I send out email confirming the branch has been created. Thanks, Tanya Lattner

On Sunday 28 November 2004 00:24, Tanya Lattner wrote: Just some comments from a QMTest user... Note however, that even with them, dejagnu looks better. > Cons of QMTest: > 1) You have to use the gui to add directories. I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as QMTest does not place anything special in directories. > 2) You have to use the gui to XFAIL

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html > > Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed > yet; > others are features that we haven't added yet (or may never add). In > DejaGNU, the result for such tests will be XFAIL (eXpected FAILure). > In > this way, you can tell the

LLVMers, Sorry for the delay in this email. The 1.8 release has been pushed out 1 week, so today marks 1 week before I create the 1.8 branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:02:18PM -0800, Julien Lerouge wrote: > For 2), I think the NewNightlyTest.pl script would require some small > changes, to invoke the jcheck target instead of check, pass the desired > -j flag, and also parse the log. I'll take a look. In any case, the > changes would only apply to the DejaGNU tests (llvm-test already works > fine with -jX). Here is

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers > review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are > currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full > llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that > needs to be fixed before the release, please fix it or

Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. -Tanya

On Monday 02 February 2009 13:20, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. What does re-creating mean? Why can't the previously-created 2.5 branch simply be updated? I ask because svn history will look a little wierd and it makes it harder for third parties to track revisions and do merges.

> On Monday 02 February 2009 13:20, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >> Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. > > What does re-creating mean? Why can't the previously-created 2.5 branch > simply be updated? It means deleting the branch and creating a new one. > I ask because svn history will look a little wierd and it makes it harder for

Hello everyone, I'm wrestling with the LLVM unit and regression tests now and would like to discuss some changes to make. I will be preparing patches, but any input/ideas are welcome. I leave "where the tests should run" question out for the scope yet. Let's review what kind of tests we have and how to handle them correctly. We have 3 types of unit and regression tests: 1.)

The various intrinsic assert/crashes should all be fixed on mainline CVS (they are PR733, which I just fixed). The only ones that I'm wary of are: XPASS: /proj/llvm/build/../llvm/test/Regression/CFrontend/2004-02-20- StaticRedeclare.c.tr FAIL: /proj/llvm/build/../llvm/test/Regression/CFrontend/2005-12-04- DeclarationLineNumbers.c: In the former case, I would guess that the test isn't

Thanks, Dale, that really helps. What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? Thanks, --Patrick On 07/22/10 16:04, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > >> From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html >> >> Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; >> others are

Hi, We were wondering if *all* of the dejagnu tests should pass (in the sense that no result should be unexpected), because we have a few failed tests on our build. I will mail the summary once my current build is done.

I just updated again (both llvm and llvm-gcc). The only thing that changed was: P test/Regression/CFrontend/2005-12-04-DeclarationLineNumbers.c The regression test below was done *with* your llvm-gcc changes to llvm- expand.c. I don't know what the failures are all about, but I will try it again. If its the same, I'll let you know. Reid. On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 16:20 -0500, Chris Lattner