similar to: [LLVMdev] 1 Week Before 2.0 Branch Creation

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

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

> I very much want to get my regalloc refactoring changes in but I don't > have a consistent platform to test them on. Someone broke llvm-gcc > bootstrapping late last week or this week. How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. > Can we please freeze features for a while and get

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

I will be creating the branch at 9PM PST. Please refrain from checking in any large changes until after the branch creation. I'm still seeing unexpected dejagnu failures for PPC and X86. Platform maintainers, please XFAIL these and file bugzilla bugs. Email me if you have concerns or questions. -Tanya

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch > creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. Depends how you look at it. Structurally, it separates two files into four and moves some functionality from one class to a new class, so in a sense that's a big change. Code-logic-wise, it does nothing at all. I will

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

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

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

> Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > >> How large of a change have you made? With 3 days before the branch >> creation, I strongly advise people not to be checking in major changes. > > Depends how you look at it. Structurally, it separates two files into > four and moves some functionality from one class to a new class, so in a > sense that's a big change.

Aaron Gray wrote: > It would be good to have a mailing list for test results where 'make check' > results could be posted so that there is some reference and people could > avoid repeating builds. There's the llvm-testresults list, but I find it less than fully useful because it's not immediately obvious from scanning message subjects if there's been a test

In which folder does proc "exp_debug" exist, because I've downloaded (not build and installed this version) the latest version of expect (5.42), but cannot find it? Henrik. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at

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.

Hi, Tanya! >* November 6, 2006: Code freeze and release branch created. Documentation > revisions. Does it mean that I can commit my changes to LLVM until November 6? Thanks. Tony. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061030/1e4ae18f/attachment.html>

> Well, doing a runtest in the test folder gave me these results: > ----------------- > WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified > Test Run By llvm on Fri Jan 7 20:55:24 2005 > Native configuration is i686-pc-mingw32 > > === tests === > > ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "exp_debug" does not exist. The error code is NONE The >

> In which folder does proc "exp_debug" exist, because I've downloaded (not > build and installed this version) the latest version of expect (5.42), but > cannot find it? I have no clue. Just install it. -Tanya > > Henrik. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> > Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing

Well, doing a runtest in the test folder gave me these results: ----------------- WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified Test Run By llvm on Fri Jan 7 20:55:24 2005 Native configuration is i686-pc-mingw32 === tests === ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "exp_debug" does not exist. The error code is NONE The info on the error is: can't rename to

Can any one, who has dejagnu and expect installed and working, send me an output when running '(g)make check' from llvm. Thanks. Henrik. ============================================================= Henrik Bach LLVM Open Source Developer e-mail: henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com ============================================================= 'Nothing is impossible; The impossible

I found that it was runtest.exp which referenced to the internal exp_debug function. For testing purposes I disabled the reference and ran a new: make check VERBOSE=1 which gave me this: ------------------ if test -d "/C/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-2-1/test" ; then \ if test -f "/C/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-2-1/test/Makefile" ; then \ echo llvm[0]: Running test suite ; \

> I'm not sure if dejagnu is installed correctly. Is there any way to call it > on the command line? > > I get this: > ------------------- > $ runtest --version | tee -a my_runtest.log > WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. > Expect version is 5.21 > Tcl version is 8.0 > Framework version is 1.4.4 > ------------------- It looks