similar to: [LLVMdev] Possible SelectionDAG Bug

On Friday 26 February 2010 09:55:32 David Greene wrote: > In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing in > SelectionDAG, I added the following assert > toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: Here's a patch to add more of these deleted node asserts. They fire tons of times in the testbase. This concerns me greatly. Are all of these asserts valid? If

On Friday 26 February 2010 10:34:41 David Greene wrote: > On Friday 26 February 2010 09:55:32 David Greene wrote: > > In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing in > > SelectionDAG, I added the following assert > > toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: > > Here's a patch to add more of these deleted node asserts. They fire > tons

On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:07 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 26 February 2010 10:34:41 David Greene wrote: >> On Friday 26 February 2010 09:55:32 David Greene wrote: >>> In the continuing quest to try to track down problems we're seeing >>> in >>> SelectionDAG, I added the following assert >>> toSelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValuesWith: >>

Hello there, I had some software working under Wine 1.1.35 (Testbase - a database of questions for schools). Now I am up to 1.1.44, my installation does not work (in a bottle made with winebottler). I get these errors: OLE error 80004005 and Exception EExternalException in module ntdll at 0001F977 External exception C0000025 in addition to this, X11 crashes each time... I could go back to wine

Hello, Noticed a couple of problems with the rsync testsuite. I have included a possible patch for each problem (attached & inlined.) The first problem is that on OpenBSD when make test is run and tests are skipped you see messages like this: cat: "/tmp/rsync-2/rsync/testtmp.chown/whyskipped": No such file or directory SKIP chown () After my patch, you get the appropriate

On Friday 13 November 2009 15:17, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. > > > > $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc > > Seems due to David's patches. Ok. Send me a testcase and I will fix. This should be put into the testbase. -Dave

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: >> Actually, we don't have any problem releasing tests. We have done so >> before when sending patches. The problem is the people we got the >> tests from. Some are from proprietary test suites, others are from >> sensitive codes, etc. It's often not up to us at all. > > I completely understand. Why don't

On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:26:41 -0500 <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: > > >> Actually, we don't have any problem releasing tests. We have done > >> so before when sending patches. The problem is the people we got > >> the tests from. Some are from proprietary test suites, others are > >> from sensitive

> Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. > > $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc Seems due to David's patches. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc ... BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry Live Ins: %LR %R7 %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 STR %LR<kill>, %SP, %reg0, 4, 14, %reg0; mem:ST4[0 llc 0x008b3304 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 45 1 llc 0x008b390c

> > So I think it should be at the discretion of port to enable or disable > > such optimizations as needed. > > While that it a valid approach in general, it is completely at odds > with the approach that the LLVM codebase has taken. The general LLVM > philosophy is that all optimizations should be as aggressive as > possible at whatever they do, and it is then the

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 05:20:43PM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > As I see it, there are regulary commits that introduce performance and > > code size regressions. There doesn't seem to be any formal testing in > > place. Not for X86, not for ARM. Hunting down regressions like > >

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc2 was tagged yesterday from the release_90 branch at r368683. In the Git monorepo it's available as the llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2 tag. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc2 Binaries will be added as they become available. The tag went in roughly one week behind schedule (see "Upcoming Releases" at https://llvm.org), but

Hi everyone, 9.0.0-rc1 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r367217 (tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc1 in the Git monorepo). Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc1 Binaries will be added as they become available. Please file bug reports for any issues you find as blockers of https://llvm.org/PR42474 Release testers: please start your engines, run the

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371837. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc5 Binaries will be added as they become available. There is only a single change from rc4 to rc5. Once more, the hope is that this will be the last release candidate and that we can

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:58:41 -0500 <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: > > >> I would like that very much. It's a resource issue, not a > >> technical one. > > > > I think that it might be useful to think about changing the > > parameters of this optimization problem. Could you release enough > > of

Hello again, 9.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371490. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc4 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are not a lot of changes from rc3 to rc4, and there are again no open release blockers, so I'm hoping this will be the last

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom