Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc bootstrap failure"
2017 Mar 20
2
3-stage bootstrap build bots?
Do any of the current build bots for llvm.org perform 3-stage
bootstraps with file comparison of the stage2 and stage3 object files
and generated headers? On x86_64-apple-darwin16 using the fink
projects llvm packaging methodology (crafted by David Fang), I am
seeing non-deterministic file comparison failures in current trunk
that goes back as far as r296837.
2017 Jul 09
2
Uncovering non-determinism in LLVM - The Next Steps
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, I just successfully performed a 3-stage bootstrap with
>> stage2/stage3 object file comparison on x86_64-apple-darwin16 for
>>
2017 Jul 09
2
Uncovering non-determinism in LLVM - The Next Steps
FYI, I just successfully performed a 3-stage bootstrap with
stage2/stage3 object file comparison on x86_64-apple-darwin16 for
llvm/clang/clang-tools-extra/compiler-rt/libcxx/openmp/polly using our
custom fink packaging scripts with the
-DLLVM_REVERSE_ITERATION:BOOL=ON cmake option. There were no
stage2/stage3 object file comparison failures or test suite
regressions.
I do have one question
2011 Mar 09
0
[LLVMdev] [RC1] Building clang/llvm on Cygwin-1.7
Hello guys,
On cygwin-1.7, I can build and test clang successfully by 3-stage.
Known issues:
- binaries among stage2 and stage3 do not match. (other than
timestamp and checksum)
investigating.
- I met some warnings. I have fixes for them.
- [llvm] r127241
- [llvm] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110307/117725.html
- [clang] r127283
- [clang]
2013 Oct 29
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/13 07:01 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux),
>>> and it works for me (tm). This
2013 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote:
> On 10/29/13 07:01 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux),
>> and it works for me (tm). This is with libstdc++ providing the ABI pieces,
>> rather than libc++abi or libcxxrt, though.]
>>
> libc++
2010 May 06
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Living on Clang
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
> The third stage is for comparing the output of clang (as compiled by
> gcc) against clang (as compiled by clang). The whole process is:
>
> Stage 1: build clang with gcc
>
> Stage 2: build clang with the clang created by gcc
>
> Stage 3: build clang with the clang created by clang.
>
>
2010 Sep 06
1
combining collumns for data.frames
Hi
This question is far less simple than the title suggests, please read carefully, thanks.
I have 2 sets of data, both read into R
>data1<-read.table ("1.txt", header=T, sep="\t")
>data2<-read.table ("2.txt", header=T, sep="\t")
>data1
Taxon stage1 stage2 stage3 stage4
T1 0 0 1 1
T2 0
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David Greene wrote:
> The saga continues.
>
> I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
> the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
> of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
>
>
> warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
>
>
2011 Mar 28
0
[LLVMdev] [RC3] Status on Mingw MSYS
It is good. Two clang tests will fail due to PR8520 and have been
fixed in llvm ToT r127724.
With 3-stage build, stage-3 binaries are working fine.
Bill, thank you to work for release_29!
ps. binaries of stage2 and stage3 would not match. [PR9569]
...Takumi
$ uname.exe -a
MINGW32_NT-6.1 HEAVEN64 1.0.12(0.46/3/2) 2010-02-05 01:08 i686 unknown
$ gcc --version
gcc.exe (TDM-1 mingw32) 4.4.0
*
2015 Jul 07
2
[LLVMdev] between r241513 and r241594, clang 3.7.0svn now crashes building clang-tools-extra
Since we are only a week away from branching for 3.7.0, this new
breakage in the stage2 bootstrap of
llvm/clang/compiler-rt/clang-tools-extra should get triaged. At
r241513, a three stage bootstrap with comparision of stage2/stage3
files completed fine. However at r241594 we now have the new
regression reported in https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24054...
Assertion failed: (Val &&
2006 Oct 13
3
multiply two matrixes with the different dimension column by column
Dear all,
I would like to multiply two matrixes with the different dimension column
by column. Let make an example:
If I have two matrixes "X" and "Y"as follow:
X<- matrix(1:12, nrow=4, ncol=3, dimnames=list(c("A","B","C","D"),
c("stage1","stage2","stage3")))
Y<- matrix(1:28, nrow=4, ncol=7,
2007 Apr 30
1
CentOS 5 single DVD for i386 and x86_64
Hello,
I'd like to announce a release of a CentOS 5 DVD image, with i386 and
x86_64 installations.
This is an independent work, so please don't bother CentOS lists with
bugs related to the installer only.
Summary of changes:
* i686 and x86_64 install from a single dvd (automatic detection on boot)
* updates as of 2007-04-26
* no kdelibs-api-docs, openoffice.org, tetex-doc and most
2008 Aug 22
0
[LLVMdev] New llvm-gcc bootstrap failure
Hello, Rafael
> I am having the same problem. It was "introduced" by revision 54811,
> so it looks like a memory corruption problem. Investigating.
Same here. Thanks for bisection, I'll also try to look into.
When I tried to investigate the problem last time, I found, that the
problem disappears, when I added -fno-unit-at-a-time. The output from
stage1 compiler was the same
2013 Oct 28
5
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
For those driving c++11 in clang/llvm - Would it generally be acceptable
to have a "sunrise" period where the preliminary evaluation has been
done (buildbots, compiler evaluate.. etc) and the 1st actual c++11
commit hits the repo. (30-60 days?)
-------------
My concern/thoughts - When we swap out STDCXX for libc++ - We aren't
able to self host clang. This could be entirely *our*
2012 Apr 29
0
need help with avg.surv (Direct Adjusted Survival Curve)
Hello R users,
I am trying to obtain a direct adjusted survival curve. I am sending my whole code (see below). It's basically the larynx cancer data with Stage 1-4. I am using the cox model using coxph option, see the fit3 coxph. When I use the avg.surv option on fit3, I get the following error: "fits<-avg.surv(fit3, var.name="stage.fac", var.values=c(1,2,3,4), data=larynx)
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues.
I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
(Are the above two ok?)
The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in
the
2011 Nov 18
0
Kalman Filter with dlm
I have built a Kalman Filter model for flu forecasting as shown below.
Y - Target Variable X1 - Predictor1 X2 - Predictor2
While forecasting into the future, I will NOT have data for all three
variables. So, I am predicting X1 and X2 using two Kalman filters. The code
is below
x1.model <- dlmModSeas(52) + dlmModPoly(1, dV=5, dW=10)
x2.model <- dlmModSeas(52) + dlmModPoly(1, dV=10,
2010 Jul 17
0
Adjustment for multiple-comparison for log-rank test
DeaR experts,
I was asked for a log-rank pairwise survival comparison. I've a straightforward way
to do this using the SAS system:
http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/statug_lifetest_sect019.htm
What I've found in R is shown below, but it's not a logrank test,
I suppose. (The documentation
2011 Mar 18
0
[LLVMdev] [RC1] Status of Mingw MSYS
Good evening, guys!
I suppose mingw build would be stable, though, I would like some
patches to be picked up.
* RC1
LLVM and clang can be built on either msys/autoconf, msys/cmake and mingw/cmake.
By CMake, all tests can run but 37 of LLVM and 5 of clang tests would fail.
On mingw by configure tests cannot be executed.
[PR9505] For compiling, I saw a warning, in llvm-bcanalyzer.cpp.
(fixed in