similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] grue-x86-64-pic i386 nightly tester results

On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Apache wrote: > http://llvm.org/nightlytest/test.php?machine=231&night=4754 > Name: il0102a-dhcp80.apple.com > Nickname: OldGrawp-O0-PIC > Buildstatus: OK > > New Test Passes: > test/CFrontend/2008-01-28-PragmaMark.c [DEJAGNU] > > > New Test Failures: > Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/except [LLC compile, ] >

It's me. Our ISD::LABEL implementation has issues... Evan On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Apache wrote: > >> http://llvm.org/nightlytest/test.php?machine=231&night=4754 >> Name: il0102a-dhcp80.apple.com >> Nickname: OldGrawp-O0-PIC >> Buildstatus: OK >> >> New Test Passes: >>

llvm itself is built with gcc-4.0, but the run line is: // RUN: %llvmgxx -S -O0 -emit-llvm %s -o - | grep retval | grep S242 | grep {i32 1} | count 2 According the log: FAIL: /Volumes/Muggles/LLVM/nightlytest-pic/build/llvm/test/C+ +Frontend/2008-02-13-sret.cpp Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running: /usr/local/bin/llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -S -O0 -emit-llvm /

On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > But I am using llvm-gcc-4.2. Any idea why it's failing? > > Evan All the failing testers are using gcc-4.0 according to the web pages they point at. > On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Apache wrote: >>> New Test Failures: >>>

On Feb 16, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> Using built-in specs. >>> Target: i686-apple-darwin9 >>> Configured with: /tmp/llvmgcc42.r46865.roots/llvmgcc42.r46865~obj/ >>> src/configure --disable-checking --enable-werror --prefix=/ >>> Developer/ >>> usr/llvm-gcc-4.2

But I am using llvm-gcc-4.2. Any idea why it's failing? Evan On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Feb 16, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Apache wrote: >> New Test Failures: >> test/C++Frontend/2008-02-13-sret.cpp [DEJAGNU] > > This test doesn't work with gcc-4.0, which caused it to fail on a > number of testers overnight. I can fix that in 4.0, but as I

On Feb 16, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Apache wrote: > New Test Failures: > test/C++Frontend/2008-02-13-sret.cpp [DEJAGNU] This test doesn't work with gcc-4.0, which caused it to fail on a number of testers overnight. I can fix that in 4.0, but as I understand it we're going to drop support for it next release, so how about now?

On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> >> Using built-in specs. >> Target: i686-apple-darwin9 >> Configured with: /tmp/llvmgcc42.r46865.roots/llvmgcc42.r46865~obj/ >> src/configure --disable-checking --enable-werror --prefix=/Developer/ >> usr/llvm-gcc-4.2 --mandir=/Developer/usr/llvm-gcc-4.2/share/man -- >>

> > Using built-in specs. > Target: i686-apple-darwin9 > Configured with: /tmp/llvmgcc42.r46865.roots/llvmgcc42.r46865~obj/ > src/configure --disable-checking --enable-werror --prefix=/Developer/ > usr/llvm-gcc-4.2 --mandir=/Developer/usr/llvm-gcc-4.2/share/man -- > enable-languages=c,objc,c++,obj-c++ --program-prefix=llvm- --program- >

> 1. Improvements to the perl script which manage actual testing > (./util/NewNightlyTest.pl) > (a). compiling llvm-gcc > (b). allowing someone to use an existing tree versus checking out a > new one > 2. The improvements to the email that get sent to the llvm-testresults > (a). finding a point in time where some test failed > (b). comparing two

Hey All, I have been making some changes to the nightly tester that will hopefully make debugging problems and performance issues easier. The big change is nightly test results will now be kept in a central location (http://llvm.org/nightlytest/index.php). I have committed a new file to utils/ called 'NewNightlyTest.pl'. It *should* behave almost exactly like the previous NightlyTest.pl

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

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

Yes, they are real. I re-ran the two tests with the biggest execution time regressions, and the results were completely reproducible. On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> >>

On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > A big compile time regression. Any ideas? > > Ciao, Duncan. False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent

Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. Ciao, Duncan. On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/332/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time >

Reid, Click on any of these logs and you'll see the same asm parsing issues. It's been going on for much of the week. http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machines/2006-12-29_05:40:12-Build-Log.txt http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machines/2006-12-29_05:40:12-Build-Log.txt llvm[4]: Compiling stacker_rt.ll to stacker_rt.bc for Release build (bytecode)

Hi Bob, >> A big compile time regression. Any ideas? >> >> Ciao, Duncan. > > False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent runs. here is a crazy

On Dec 23, 2008, at 3:49 AMPST, Apache wrote: > New Test Failures: > SPEC/CINT2000/175.vpr/175.vpr [LLC compile, LLC-BETA compile, JIT > codegen, LLC, LLC-BETA, JIT] > SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc [LLC compile, LLC-BETA compile, JIT > codegen, LLC, LLC-BETA, JIT] Dan says these are my doing, I'll look.

On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > This nightly tester is now using an llvm-g++ that produces the new > ODR linkage > types. This means that many more functions are being considered by > the > inter-procedural optimization passes (for example, "linkonce" > functions defined > in a header). The result seems to be pretty huge swings (both good