similar to: [LLVMdev] Poll: LLVM test-suite project usage

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie

Sorry for the bother Jim, but I'm calling on you again for guidance about llvm-gcc mentions. What should be done about the mention of llvm-gcc on <http://llvm.org/docs/TestSuiteMakefileGuide.html>? Can we just roughly s/llvm-gcc/clang/ ? Daniel, feel free to provide guidance as well. -- Sean Silva On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > To weigh in here... > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT

On 8 January 2013 04:49, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > While this should be investigated, > I'm tempted to just move everything over to LNT instead... > That's the latent bugs that David mentioned. I agree we should have LNT and LNT+LTO and possibly other configurations in the future. Regarding your buildbots, gcc12 is easy to replace by LNT, because the

All, I'm curious to know if anyone is interested in tracking performance (compile-time and/or execution-time) from a community perspective? This is a much loftier goal then just supporting build bots. If so, I'd be happy to propose a BOF at the upcoming Dev Meeting. Chad

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> > To weigh in here... >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 8 January 2013 04:49, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> >> While this should be investigated, >> I'm tempted to just move everything over to LNT instead... > > > That's the latent bugs that David mentioned. I agree we should have LNT and > LNT+LTO

Hi Sean, On 14/11/12 23:53, Sean Silva wrote: > Sorry for the bother Jim, but I'm calling on you again for guidance > about llvm-gcc mentions. What should be done about the mention of > llvm-gcc on <http://llvm.org/docs/TestSuiteMakefileGuide.html>? Can we > just roughly s/llvm-gcc/clang/ ? Daniel, feel free to provide guidance > as well. to some extent llvm-gcc lives on

To weigh in here... On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some > thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > David, > > > >

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > To weigh in here... > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some >> thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. >> >> On

Hi, I'm trying to setup the test-suite and am getting short of running it... Following the steps here: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I got as far as getting lnt installed, but when I run the "lnt runtest nt" it fails: compilers.py:81: error: unable to determine compiler version: 'clang++': 'clang version 3.2 ' Seems my string doesn't have a

Exactly how are you running the tests? Via LNT or directly? If via LNT, make sure you test suite repository is clean (no in tree configure or make results). - Daniel On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:57, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > Round 2, fight! > > I managed to run many tests (not sure all of them), and some failed, > some didn't. All errors in the

On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:19, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 28 October 2012 17:32, Daniel Dunbar <daniel.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote: >> Exactly how are you running the tests? Via LNT or directly? > > Via LNT, like this: > > ./sandbox/bin/python sandbox/bin/lnt runtest nt \ > --sandbox sandbox \ > --test-suite

I followed the lnt quickstart <http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html> directions but got this diagnostic when doing the setup: bash-3.2$ ~/mysandbox/bin/python ~/lnt/setup.py develop /Users/dcallahan/mysandbox/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py:284: UserWarning: The version spec\ ified requires normalization, consider using '0.4.1.dev0' instead of

On 28 October 2012 17:32, Daniel Dunbar <daniel.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote: > Exactly how are you running the tests? Via LNT or directly? Via LNT, like this: ./sandbox/bin/python sandbox/bin/lnt runtest nt \ --sandbox sandbox \ --test-suite ~/devel/llvm/test-suite \ --cc ~/devel/llvm/debug/bin/clang++ > If via LNT, make sure you test suite repository is clean (no in

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 4 June 2013 22:08, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> is test-suite being run still by itself (independent of llvm)? >> > > AFAIK, yes. http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html > > > if so, are there public build bots for this? >> > > We have

Hi David, That's weird, I have setup LNT in multiple different distros and have never seen this. Looks like no one ever tested on the system you're running. Can you share a bit more of your environment? Also, you can check the setup.py to see if it does any stripping of package names, which could go wrong in the wrong environment. cheers, --renato On 29 January 2015 at 20:13, David

Hi, I am very interested in using dragonegg as a fortran frontend for the LLVM test suite, as a start to improve fortran support. I believe this should be easy, but when I looked into this I had the impression the nightly tester in the llvm test-suite does not even support dragonegg for the C/C++ part. Is this true or did I miss something? Are there any patches flying around, that would take