similar to: [LLVMdev] Announcing LLVM 2.9 RC3 Testing Phase

Hi Bill, Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) Cheers, David. On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The good news: RC2 testing was successful in that it uncovered a bad regression from 2.8 (which existed in top-of-tree). It also showed that there was an unincorporated fix that needed to go into

Hi David, Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) -bw On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) > > Cheers, > David. > > On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The good news:

On 3/27/11 4:38 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > Please check out sources. Compile things. Report bugs. Etc. I'm not sure if this is useful as is, but attached is output of `make check` for llvm+clang, on a Tegra2 machine with ubuntu linux. The ocaml binding failures are due to the fact there is no ocamlopt on arm, even though there is ocaml/ocamlc, and the bindings compile

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:07:25PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi David, > > Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) > > -bw Bill, Any chance we can squeeze http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9571#c13 into llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9 for the final llvm-gcc release? Jack > > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > > > Hi

I'm really sorry for the wide e-mail, but I've exhausted the normal channels. I get: llvm[2]: Linking Release executable tblgen (without symbols) llvm[2]: ======= Finished Linking Release Executable tblgen (without symbols) llvm[2]: Compiling fpcmp.cpp for Release build llvm[2]: Linking Release executable fpcmp (without symbols) llvm[2]: ======= Finished Linking Release Executable

My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate that 3.0 release requires some some beefy machines to build. It is not so much raw cpu speed but memory and lots of it. My builds got to linking llc and at that point linker started eating megabytes of memory like chocolate. So sadly chumbys, beagleboards, iThingis(?), Raspberry Pis, Gumstix and even inexpensive Tegra2 boards seem to be out of

On 10/17/2011 09:20 AM, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > > My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate > that 3.0 release requires some some beefy machines to build. > It is not so much raw cpu speed but memory and lots of it. > My builds got to linking llc and at that point linker started > eating megabytes of memory like chocolate. > > So sadly chumbys, beagleboards,

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

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)

I'm trying to compile llvm (cvs head) on windows (WinXP sp2) using the lastest mingw, but I'm getting the link errors found below. It seems that the tools are not being linked with win32 api lib (libimagehlp.a and libpsapi.a) which defines the missing symbols. The TOOLS_VERBOSE link command is at the end of the mail and does not contain those libraries. The configure line I'm

Hi, Has anyone succeeded in building llvm on AIX? Currently I am investigating several tools for code analyses and I came upon Clang. We at CCV run our core business applications on RS6000/AIX. At our department we develop those applications. The reviews on clang look very promising. I was able to build and run it on Linux (SuSE 12.1) without any problems. I tested it with valgrind sources and

when I create the report, there are no failures in it. so maybe these are being filtered for known failures. On 12/12/2012 05:03 PM, reed kotler wrote: > 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: >

I use the 'make TEST=simple' as a pre-commit test. I think that everybody should run these tests before committing to LLVM. On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:06 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > when I create the report, there are no failures in it. so maybe these are being filtered for known failures. > > On 12/12/2012 05:03 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> The first

Evan, > I'm the code owner of LLVM codegen and targets. I'm also the one of main developers on the original ARM target. That means, I would make the decisions on major development on ARM target if there are decisions to be made. > > But my role is very different from what people are looking for in this thread. To properly qualify a target like ARM which are supported on many

>> Ouch, indeed... Is it ok it has no build rules? > > I think that it should have build rules. If nothing else, can you file a bug report on this? It is building using configure + make. In good old days the perfect shuffle tables for PPC were generated through the normal build process like .td files. However, this was pretty useless - they do not change and thus perfectshuffle was

I forgot to mention that you can also run "make TEST=simple report" which will generate a nice report. Do you know why these tests fail ? You can step into the test directory and run 'make TEST=simple' from there. It will save you some time. On Dec 12, 2012, at 4:04 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > I'm getting three failures. > > TEST-FAIL:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "Abe Skolnik" > <a.skolnik at samsung.com>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at

Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> writes: > I'm not sure if this makes a difference but I ran this > > make -j 2 -k LLVMCC_OPTION=clang ENABLE_BUILT_CLANG=1 ENABLE_PARALLEL_REPORT=1 TEST=simple report > ../../report.txt 2>&1 That does indeed seem to get me further. Thanks! -Dave

Hi, I'm able to build the llvm tools on the MinGW platform: burg, fpcmp, tblgen, llvm-as, llvm-dis, opt, gccas, llc, llvm-link, lli, gccld, llvm-stub, analyze and extract. I wonder if these tools are sufficient to start build the cfrontend? Henrik. _________________________________________________________________ Undg� pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis!

I'm getting three failures. TEST-FAIL: exec /home/rkotler/llvmpb3/build/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/UnitTests/Vector/SSE/sse.expandfft TEST-RESULT-exec-time: user 0.3200 TEST-RESULT-exec-real-time: real 0.3172 TEST-FAIL: exec /home/rkotler/llvmpb3/build/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/UnitTests/Vector/SSE/sse.stepfft TEST-RESULT-exec-time: user 0.4000