similar to: [LLVMdev] ARM backend failures from (gcc) c torture suite

I don't have a target in front of me to run these tests at the moment, but walking manually through va-arg-1.c, it's pretty clear that there's some disconnect between the register spilling that happens in LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS and what happens in LowerVASTART in ARMISelLowering.cpp. deep On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM, robert muth<robert at muth.org> wrote: > I wrote a few

I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) there are now 2 compilation and 23 runtime failure. A tarball with reproducers is attached. Most problems are still vargs related. Robert On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Sandeep Patel <deeppatel1987 at gmail.com>wrote: > I don't have a target in front of me to run these tests at the moment, > but walking

Can you file a bug? Thanks. Evan On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:30 AM, robert muth wrote: > I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) > there are now > 2 compilation and 23 runtime failure. A tarball with reproducers is > attached. > Most problems are still vargs related. > > Robert > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Sandeep Patel

Just filed bugs for this and a new rather severe one involving address arithmetic. Robert On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Can you file a bug? Thanks. > Evan > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:30 AM, robert muth wrote: > > I have run the torture test again svn head rev 76522 (2009/07/20) there are > now > 2 compilation and 23

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:59 AM, robert muth wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> +cl::opt<std::string> FlagJumpTableSection("jumptable-section", >>> +                                          

On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:42 PM, robert muth wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:59 AM, robert muth wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> wrote: >>>> +cl::opt<std::string>

Hi Robert, Evan asked me to review this patch, and I have some questions about it. I apologize for not following the discussion earlier and for hitting you with questions after you've already gone through several revisions. LLVM provides some default behavior for handling jump tables, with the tables emitted separately from the code that uses them. The ARM backend provides its

Evan: Sorry for the late follow up, I was out of town last week. Enclosed please find the updated patch including all your suggestions and a dejagnus test. Robert On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:42 PM, robert muth wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > +cl::opt<std::string> FlagJumpTableSection("jumptable-section", > +                                           cl::init(".data.jtab")); > + I thought it would be nice to group all the jumptables together. But as long as it stays configurable, I am fine to change the default to

On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:59 AM, robert muth wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> +cl::opt<std::string> FlagJumpTableSection("jumptable-section", >> + cl::init(".data.jtab")); >> + > > I thought it would be nice to group all the jumptables

I get the following errors when building the torture suite under HP-UX 11i with HP AnsiC. They are actually somewhat similar to the errors that I get trying to build the whole package with gcc: Compiling torture/torture.c In file included from include/includes.h:109, from torture/torture.c:23: /usr/include/sys/socket.h:484: error: parse error before "sendfile"

Hi, I have some annoying telemarketer calling me on a recurring basis, but I'd like to discourage them a bit and have some fun. I found this: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+AEL+Telemarketer+Torture but the link to download the sound files is dead (wyoming.e-tools.com is NXDOMAIN). Anyone have a copy of these? -Adam

On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 17:34, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 8/30/19 10:18 AM, Sam Elliott via llvm-dev wrote: > > TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887 >

TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887 Background: While working on the RISC-V backend, we have found it useful to use additional test suites beyond the in-tree Clang and LLVM tests and the LLVM nightly tests, in order to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anyone have the telemarketer torture prompts? I would seriously like to revive this..... - -- James Finstrom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH3I8qdloC7YyaIOoRAlAjAJ9Hp+3SS2Z8179HecWIETp4RVDzWQCeMizp fW2JPZdYl/uxG1ziUwYnHGo= =QPbv -----END PGP

Hello-- I submitted of extensions.conf that contains my "telemarketer torture" menus, last week sometime to the mailing list. I got back a note from the mailing list machinery, stating that it was too big, and would be subject to approval. No such approval came, I guess. Either I missed it, or it didn't rate, or the moderator just plain hasn't gotten around to it yet. So, I

There are 1500 tests total, and about 100 on the platform-agnostic blacklist. Alex and I do not think this is an onerous burden for maintenance, either as an external test suite or if the test suite is imported. In the long term, if we import the tests, we know we will have to do updates when the Embecosm work lands, and beyond that updates can be more sporadic. It’s not clear to me how much

Hi all, The attachment supersedes the previous patch. It incorporates some feedback from Anton and takes the next step of merging the largely duplicated calling convention logic in X86ISelLowering. LowerCCCArguments, LowerX86_64CCCArguments and LowerFastCCArguments are merged and inlined directly into LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. I moved LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS to the location where

What is the difference between these two functions? The header file for TargetLowering class says that LowerArguments must be implemented, but only the Sparc and IA64 backends implement them. X86, PowerPC and CellSPU implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS, but I can find a setOperationAction that states that they should be lowered. Can someone please explain this for me? Thanks, Micah Villmow

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 18:36 schreef Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 9/3/19 7:19 AM, Sam Elliott wrote: > > There are 1500 tests total, and about 100 on the platform-agnostic > blacklist. Alex and I do not think this is an onerous burden for > maintenance, either as an external test suite or if the test suite is > imported. > > > >