similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal for GSoC project for improving llvm-test testsuite

Hello every body, With the ideas and suggestions that I got from you all I came up with the proposal for the project of improving the llvm-test testsuite. I am posting my proposal here, if you have any feedback(anything to be added or anything to be removed ) please let me know, so that I can improve the proposal before I upload it in Google web app. Thanks in advance.! Regarda, Rjika *Proposal

Hello every body, I am a Computer Science and Engineering final year undergraduate in here [1]. As you all aware of GSoC 2008 program is now on [2]. I would like to participate in this on a project on LLVM. The reason why I selected LLVM is I am really interested in compiler theory. I took the one semester course on compiler theory and developed a lexical analyzer in C for a subset of Javascript

On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > Hello every body, > I am a Computer Science and Engineering final year undergraduate in > here [1]. > As you all aware of GSoC 2008 program is now on [2]. I would like to > participate in this on a project on LLVM. The reason why I selected > LLVM is I am really interested in compiler theory. > I took the one

Hello every body, Thank you all for your great suggestions and feedbacks, I'd forward the detailed proposal within couple of days. And also if I need to clarify any thing I'll ask in the list. Thanks again. Regards, Rajika On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > While on the subject of the testsuite, some random thoughts: > > - show

Another suggestion: a web service that would allow you to submit a test build and it would provide you feedback on deviations from known good for that target. I know a lot of people keep two trees around for this purpose, and I'd personally like to ditch the duplicate if I could. -- Chris On Mar 21, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > Hello every body, > Thank you all

Am Mittwoch, den 19.03.2008, 10:22 +0530 schrieb Rajika Kumarasiri: > 2. As described llvm testsuite program should be more CPU intensive > programs, is there is any reason for that and how a llvm test suite > program can make more CPU intensive, any points that should consider > to write a more CPU intensive test program for llvm? I guess that's just trying to get the most

Hi, sounds like a nice project. Some comments below. > *1. Project title:* > Extend the llvm-test testsuite to include new programs and benchmaraks[1], benchmaraks -> benchmarks > and give a web service interface to run a test build remotely. Also, this is not a title, it is a summary. How about calling it: "Improve the llvm testsuite" > *2. Abstract:* > LLVM[2]

hi all, After having some discussions in the IRC, I am trying here to come up with a proposal for GSoC 2008 for improving the llvm nightly tester[1].Following are the ideas and suggestions that came up in the discussion, if you have any comment or any other suggestion please add them to the list. I have some doubts in some places. 1. Improvements to the perl script which manage actual testing

My main complaints about the nightly tester are: Loading the web pages is waaay tooo sllooooow The information provided is not terribly useful for tracking down bugs. What bug fixers need is environment+command line options adequate to reproduce the problem. Access to the run logs would be a good start. On Apr 4, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > hi all, > After having

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

On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > I would like to see: > > (1) LLVM testsuite run every night for all targets, target variants > and > operating systems, for example by using an emulator to emulate targets > for which the hardware is not available. The gcc project has a > compile > farm which might be usable for this, but we would need to ask them

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

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 >

While on the subject of the testsuite, some random thoughts: - show how test results changed from one week and one month ago, and compared to the last release, rather than just comparing with the previous run as now. Good for spotting trends. - fix the testsuite so that buildlogs are really available: I occasionally see that a nightly tester failed the build, and in the message it gives a url

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

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 > >

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

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Romain Pechayre <rpechayr at gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. Thank you for your input. New questions :) : > - Is the dev package basically the source code of gcc 4.2 ? Isn't it > already fully included in llvm-gcc code base ? > AFAIR, you need to have the set of headers, gcc-dev.( Some one else may provide you with this information) > - How

I need to add, also you'll need bison+flex. Rajika On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajika at wso2.com> wrote: > You'll need to install the dev packages for gcc 4.2. > > Rajika > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Romain Pechayre <rpechayr at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I am trying to build the latest version

Thanks. It worked for a few more compilation lines. I now get the following linker error: undefined reference to llvm::MemoryBuffer::getNewMemBuffer(unsigned long, llvm::StringRef) I am surprised since the linker compile line already links with a whole bunch of llvm libraries ... Thanks for your help Romain On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajika at wso2.com> wrote: