similar to: [LLVMdev] [RC1] Building clang/llvm on Cygwin-1.7

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 *

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 >>

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

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

On cygwin-1.7, clang and llvm can be built fine through 3 stages. With --disable-assertions (RC3's default), I saw a few warnings in llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp with g++-4.3.4. (and two warnings, PR9515) ...Takumi $ uname.exe -a CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 HEAVEN64 1.7.7(0.230/5/3) 2010-08-31 09:58 i686 Cygwin $ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.3.4 20090804 (release) 1 * Stage 1 configured by

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.

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. > >

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

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++

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 > >

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,

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*

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 &&

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,

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

Hello, David > Anton, any luck with this? I'm wondering if it's a glitch on my end or if > it's something I should dive into deeper and attempt to debug. Bootstrap for me is broken due to different files produced at stage2 and stage3, but I didn't see such crash. In any way, I consider x86-64-bit targets to be broken, since all my 'usual' tests are currently

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

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)

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Zolotukhin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Recently I committed a change (r330175) that passed all my testing, but > failed on several bots. Namely, these are the failed ones: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 >

Thanks everyone! What are the best tools/techniques to expose such non-deterministic behavior? My hope is to reproduce it on a smaller test (e.g. use some sanitizer and thus make the compiler *fail* when building the test) - Currently these failures only tell me “there is some bug in your code” without any hints where to look for it. Michael > On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Steven Wu