similar to: [LLVMdev] Testing requirements amendment

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and > have the following test results to share. > Summary below, full log at: > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt > > The only edits required were those I

Hi, I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and have the following test results to share. Summary below, full log at: http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt The only edits required were those I posted to llvm-commits yesterday (re: "some missing clang libs"). And I also edited LitConfig.py to point to

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply again. > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >> have the following test results to share. >> Summary below, full log at: >>

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:51:57AM -0500, David Fang wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for the quick reply again. > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >>> have the following test results to share. >>>

>> These results have far fewer failures than svn-trunk, and are also >> comparable to bootstrapping with gcc-4.6.2, summarized here: >> http://paste.lisp.org/display/126363 >> (Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole build/test log for the gcc46 bootstrap.) >> This consistency between different bootstraps of the release gives me >> some hope that g++-4.0.1 is

Hi, For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/ I'll update the list of logs each time I svn-update and build. It's nowhere as nice as a real buildbot page, but it's better than nothing. 3.0 still has over 20 test

18.01.2012, 02:46, "David Fang" <fang at csl.cornell.edu>: > Hi, >          For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little > page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and > svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. > > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/ > > I'll update the list of logs each time I svn-update and

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:51:38PM +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > > 18.01.2012, 02:46, "David Fang" <fang at csl.cornell.edu>: > > Hi, > > ?????????For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little > > page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and > > svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. > > > >

Hi, > ----- Original Message ----- >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Hi all, >>>> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting >>>> to >>>> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my >>>> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only >>>> provided

> ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi all, >> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to >> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my >> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only >> provided >> __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like >> >> #define

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:17:32PM -0500, David Fang wrote: >>> These results have far fewer failures than svn-trunk, and are also >>> comparable to bootstrapping with gcc-4.6.2, summarized here: >>> http://paste.lisp.org/display/126363 >>> (Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole build/test log for the gcc46 bootstrap.) >>> This consistency between

----- Original Message ----- > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Hi all, > >> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting > >> to > >> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my > >> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only > >> provided > >> __ppc__. I was

Hi all, My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only provided __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like #define LLVM_PPC (defined(__ppc__) || defined(__powerpc__) ...) #define LLVM_PPC64 (defined(__ppc64__) ||

----- Original Message ----- > Hi all, > My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to > check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my > powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only > provided > __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like > > #define LLVM_PPC (defined(__ppc__) ||

Hi, I've been slowly but steadily working towards enabling the Mach-O/PPC backend for MC, starting with the mach-o relocation entry translation. patches/logs: http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/ git: http://github.com/fangism/llvm/tree/powerpc-darwin8 git: http://github.com/fangism/clang/tree/powerpc-darwin8 I've managed to get the simplest single-function-call hello-world

Hi, Some time in the last few weeks I noticed my cmake build of svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 start to warn about atomics being unavailable and thus building thread-unsafe. I just looked into it and found an easy solution, using the atomic functions in <libkern/OSAtomic.h> in /usr/include. The attached patch does this and also modifies the cmake and autoconf tests to 'pass'

Hi, I have just tagged the first release candidate for the 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to validate a release. If you have any questions or need something clarified, just email the list. For the 3.4.1 release we want to compare test results against 3.4-final. I have added support to the

Hi, @CC'ing Hans because this will likely be of interest to you. Right I've started trying to build LLVM inside an Ubuntu chroot (Ubuntu 14.04LTS Docker image) and I've already come across a pretty bad bug in the ``test-release.sh`` script which potentially means that builds and/or tests could potentially fail without anyone noticing (unless someone carefully looks through the logs)

> Hmm, I don't know LLVM's Makefile system well enough to know the > easiest way to implement an option; if it's non-trivial then maybe > it's not worth it. That is my impression at least. These errors are somewhat easy to introduce, but also easy to fix. > I also don't know the workflow of most people doing out-of-tree work, > so I'm not sure how much

We currently don't use pipefail when running test under make check. This has the undesirable property that it is really easy for tests to bitrot. For example, something like llc %s | FileCheck %s will still pass if llc crashes after printing what FileCheck was looking for. It is also easy to break the tests when refactoring. I have fixed tests that were doing %clang_cc1 -a-driver-options