similar to: [LLVMdev] Massive Number of Test Failures

On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:01 PM, David Greene wrote: > I am seeing a whole lot of failures in the tests on trunk. From discussions > with Chris and others, I should not be seeing this. Does 'make check-lit' pass for you in llvm/test? -Chris > > Here's a typical case: > > [x86_64-off-opt]: Core was generated by `Output/simple_throw.cbe'. > [x86_64-off-opt]:

On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 12:49, Jeff Cohen wrote: > For the heck of it I tried upgrading to gcc 3.4.2 (from 3.3.3). It > didn't make a difference. So here are the failures for llvm-test. All > diffs are against the "native" output. > > ===================== MultiSource/Applications/sgefa > > cbe failed differently from jit/llc. First cbe: > > 84c84

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:53:11 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 12:49, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > > > ===================== MultiSource/Applications/sgefa > > > sgefa is a known XFAIL. See the nightly test results over the last > several months. Actually, you should compare your test results with the > 1.3 release test results

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, heisenbug wrote: >> point taken. thanks! > > > Whatever I try I get something like this: > > ggreif$ cd MultiSource/ > ggreif$ make > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `Output/be.bc', needed by `Output/ > burg.linked.rbc'. Stop. > make[1]: *** [Burg/.makeall] Error 2 > make: *** [Applications/.makeall] Error 2 This is the

On Apr 4, 8:06 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > heisenbug wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > >>>

Hi Tanya, I've been checking the state of the various llvm-test failures on X86/Linux with GCC 3.4.6 and llvm-gcc4. I haven't finished this, but I thought the following might be useful for other people that are testing the release on Linux. Each group of failing tests below is followed by a comment about why its failing. llc /MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc jit

Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "Alexey Samsonov" <samsonov at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at

CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The

I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this

The first one failed on a diff: ******************** TEST (simple) 'sse.expandfft' FAILED! ******************** Execution Context Diff: /home/rkotler/llvmpb3/build/projects/test-suite/tools/fpcmp: Compared: 1.139094e-07 and 1.159249e-07 abs. diff = 2.015500e-09 rel.diff = 1.738626e-02 Out of tolerance: rel/abs: 1.600000e-02/0.000000e+00 ******************** TEST (simple)

Hi Tanya, Here's my second attempt on Fedora Core 5. The changes this time are: 1. Using GCC 4.0.3 as the compiler 2. Building everything from source (no pre-built binaries used) BUILD LLVM WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues, just the usual warnings. BUILD LLVM-GCC WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues RUN LLVM-TEST WITH GCC 4.0.3 * The following failures were encountered. Some of them are

For the heck of it I tried upgrading to gcc 3.4.2 (from 3.3.3). It didn't make a difference. So here are the failures for llvm-test. All diffs are against the "native" output. ===================== MultiSource/Applications/sgefa cbe failed differently from jit/llc. First cbe: 84c84 < One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879153e+02. --- > One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879156e+02.

I created the 1.9 release branch last night. As a reminder, please do not check in any code changes to the release branch. Please send me email if you have changes that need to be merged into the release branch. To check out the release branch: cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm-test cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r

Dale, Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against today's trunk. However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in llvm/test on x86 Linux 64 today. But it's the same on an unmodified tree, so I guess I'm still okay. It passed at one point for me with these changes. -John On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com>

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the > test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 > 64 bit box. > > When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the > LLVM side? In principle, yes, I'd like to rereview if it's changed. > My

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:16:37 -0700 Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:52:10 -0700 > Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > > > > I haven't got around to this yet but I will. The odds are good the > > > problem is in a BSD system header file so I need to capture the > > > preprocessed source. > > >

Actually the 2.8 fork is coming up tomorrow and I'm thinking maybe we should wait until after that. Is this something you really want to get in 2.8? On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:29 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against > today's trunk. > However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in