similar to: [LLVMdev] NewNightlyTester.pl: split into phases?

Am Samstag, den 08.03.2008, 14:02 -0800 schrieb Tanya Lattner: > - ability to check out llvm-gcc or update llvm-gcc and build it before > running tests. In addition to using a prebuilt binary. Does it need a prebuilt binary? I have been suspecting so since it has been failing with BUILD ERROR for me. I just haven't found the time to verify that yet. I have yet to try building

On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Hi all, > > when looking at NewNightlyTester.pl, I see it has several distinct > phases: > > 1. Get a current tree > 2. ./configure > 3. Build > 4. Run a selection of tests > 7. Send test results to web site > 8. Clean up > > Wouldn't it make sense to allow each phase to be activated >

On Mar 8, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 08.03.2008, 14:02 -0800 schrieb Tanya Lattner: >> - ability to check out llvm-gcc or update llvm-gcc and build it >> before >> running tests. In addition to using a prebuilt binary. > > Does it need a prebuilt binary? > I have been suspecting so since it has been failing with BUILD ERROR

Am Samstag, den 08.03.2008, 15:11 -0800 schrieb Tanya Lattner: > >> A -noreport option is probably a good idea too. > > > > OK, that should be easy to add. > > > >> Just be sure not to change what it sends to the website. That needs > >> to > >> stay the same. > > > > Sure. I think wrapping an if statement around the HTTP send

Am Samstag, den 08.03.2008, 14:02 -0800 schrieb Tanya Lattner: > - ability to check out llvm-gcc or update llvm-gcc and build it before > running tests. This seems to be a bit more complicated than I thought. There are variations in the build process depending on whether it's a Darwin system or not, installed gcc version, and presence or absence of multilib extensions. I'm not

On Mar 11, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Am Samstag, den 08.03.2008, 14:02 -0800 schrieb Tanya Lattner: >> - ability to check out llvm-gcc or update llvm-gcc and build it >> before >> running tests. > > This seems to be a bit more complicated than I thought. There are > variations in the build process depending on whether it's a Darwin >

hello every body. Here with I have attached the patch which compile the llvm-gcc using nightly tester script. This patch add the following capabilities to the NewNightlyTester.pl script. 1. Checkout the llvm-gcc4.2 source from the SVN. 2. Compile the checkout llvm-gcc4.2 source tree. 3. Gather the configure/make out put informations. 4. Add the (3) informations to the %hash_of_data hash to be

hello everybody, I have added few improvements to my patch. Please review the new patch directly. Thanks! -Rajika On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajikacc at gmail.com> wrote: > hello every body. > > Here with I have attached the patch which compile the llvm-gcc using > nightly tester script. This patch add the following capabilities to the >

Rajika, A couple of comments: - You should provide a way to specify where llvm-gcc is built (just like llvm). - I would highly recommend allowing the user to only update llvm-gcc and not check it out from scratch each time. Checking out llvm-gcc is very time consuming. You would need to make sure that llvm and llvm-gcc have the same rev number and nuke the llvm obj/install dirs so you get a

hi Bill, Thanks for the comments. I'll update the patch according to that. -Rajika On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajikacc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > hello everybody, > > > > I have added few improvements to my patch. Please review the new patch > >

Hi all, I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too dumb to find it.) Regards, Jo

Thanks :-) One last thing. It seems like the patch has a lot of whitespace changes. Could you create the diff with the -b option? -bw On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajikacc at gmail.com> wrote: > hi Bill, > Thanks for the comments. I'll update the patch according to that. > > -Rajika > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Bill Wendling

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajikacc at gmail.com> wrote: > hello everybody, > > I have added few improvements to my patch. Please review the new patch > directly. > Thanks! > Hi Rajika, A few stylistic comments. I'll let others comment on the algorithm for now: if ($VERBOSE) { print "( time -p $SVNCMD/llvm/trunk llvm; cd

Hi, I have a tftp client which loads quite happily from a tftpd built from netkit-tftp-0.16 but which fails to load from from a tftpd built from tftp-hpa 0.29. In both cases, tftpd was built from pristine sources and run from xinetd under Redhat 7.3. [netkit-tftp-0.16 is the ancestor of tftp-hpa, predating HPA's maintenance of same] [the tftp client also.. .. fails with the prebuilt tftpd

Our build system is setup to deliberately use a very old environment.  We've found that's one of the most reliable easy ways to ensure we don't accidentally introduce a dependency on a newer system library than intended.  This lets us ship prebuilt binaries which run on a wide spectrum of systems.  We're going to chat internally and check to see if we can roll this forward a

Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 09:45 -0500 schrieb Andrew Lenharth: > officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped. > unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for > some stuff. But this will only last until I can use 4.2. OK, that's a clear roadmap. Maybe the docs should be updated to reflect this status? They still present 4.0 as if it were the default

On Oct 4, 2017 2:31 PM, "Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Our build system is setup to deliberately use a very old environment. > We've found that's one of the most reliable easy ways to ensure we don't > accidentally introduce a dependency

Hi All, The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header. I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so compilation just fails. /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: In function 'unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()':

officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped. unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for some stuff. But this will only last until I can use 4.2. Andrew On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody

Hi Jo, > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.) development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on. The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly superior to 4.0 IMHO. Ciao, Duncan.