similar to: [LLVMdev] !!! 3.2 Release RC3 source code available for download and testing

On 12/06/12 01:12, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > Hello, > > Release Candidate 3 has been branched. > RC3 source code can be downloaded as tarballs from: > > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.2/rc3/ > > or directly from svn. > > Binaries will be posted shortly. > > Testing > > RC3 has a number of fixes related to MIPS support > that need to be well

2012/12/30 Larry Evans <cppljevans at suddenlink.net>: > I just created clang with the tarballs without problem; however, > when `make check-all` was run, I got 1 error. My system is: > ~/download/llvm/pre-releases/3.2/rc3/download/build_debug $ make check-all > llvm[0]: Running test suite > make[1]: Entering directory >

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Larry Evans <cppljevans at suddenlink.net>wrote: > On 12/29/12 18:40, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > > 2012/12/30 Larry Evans <cppljevans at suddenlink.net>: > >> I just created clang with the tarballs without problem; however, > >> when `make check-all` was run, I got 1 error. My system is: > > > >>

Hi testers, 3.6.0-rc2 was just tagged. Please test and build binaries. The tracking bug for 3.6 blockers is http://llvm.org/pr22374. Please file issues against it. Thanks for helping with the release! Hans

Hi, CodeGen/Generic/dbg-declare.ll is really generic test? $ make check llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/llvm-9999/work/llvm-9999/test' Making a new site.exp file... Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest 'lit.site.cfg' file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -v 1024000 ; \

On 31 Jan 2015, at 01:42, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Hi testers, > > 3.6.0-rc2 was just tagged. Please test and build binaries. > > The tracking bug for 3.6 blockers is http://llvm.org/pr22374. Please > file issues against it. > > Thanks for helping with the release! This time I got an error during check-all, on i386-unknown-freebsd10:

Hi, I am trying to build the code that I've checked out from the svn repository (revision 175705). I can do make, but not make check, it reports the `No site specific configuration available!' error. Output of make check: llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ppenzin/tmp/llvm/build_x86-64/test' Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest

Hello Xerxes, > llvm 2.9rc1 test on Dualcore ARM running Ubuntu Natty What is the gcc used for the compilation? Can you try to do the -O0 build and see whether this changed the stuff? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Kimura san, You may ask committer of r153706. I wonder if it could be x86-independent. > /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/llvm-9999/work/llvm-9999/Release/bin/llc: > error auto-selecting target for module 'No available targets are > compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets.'. >  Please use the -march option to explicitly pick a target. ...Takumi as

Ping, NAKAMURA san, thank you. Bill san, can you comment this commit? r154798 still fails on ppc32-lnux b/c *only* for this test. Loving more minor arch, the world will be better... 2012/04/04 23:26 NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com>: > Kimura san, > > You may ask committer of r153706. I wonder if it could be x86-independent. > >>

Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but

On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Xerxes Rånby wrote: > On 2011-03-14 18:14, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> Hello Xerxes, >> >>> llvm 2.9rc1 test on Dualcore ARM running Ubuntu Natty >> What is the gcc used for the compilation? Can you try to do the -O0 >> build and see whether this changed the stuff? >> > > xranby at panda:/media/dh0/llvm-2.9-build-O0$

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 here the failures. Anyway there is a suggested "revision" to use on PowerPC 32bit on Linux ? [...] llvm[0]: ***** Completed Release Build + make check llvm[0]: Running test suite make[1]: Entering directory `/home/llvm/work/src/llvm-2.8/test' Making a new site.exp file... Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest

rkotler at mipsswbrd006-le:~/caviumllvm/build/test$ make Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest 'lit.site.cfg' file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -s 8192 ; \ /usr/bin/python /home/rkotler/workspace/llvm/utils/lit/lit.py -s -v . ) XPASS: LLVM :: tools/llvm-cov/llvm-cov.test (8916 of 9784) ******************** TEST

On 2011-03-14 18:14, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello Xerxes, > >> llvm 2.9rc1 test on Dualcore ARM running Ubuntu Natty > What is the gcc used for the compilation? Can you try to do the -O0 > build and see whether this changed the stuff? > xranby at panda:/media/dh0/llvm-2.9-build-O0$ gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-5ubuntu1) 4.5.2 Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software

Hi, Eli > Mmm... and I just realized I really can't help track this down because > the code paths in question are probably Linux-specific. I spent a I add the following line back to lib/Support/Unix/Host.inc, Arch = "arm"; And examples/HowToUseJIT works fine. Regards, chenwj [1] http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=131463 -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)

Still no complete go, doing the tests on i386 failed with some weird sed error: [...] Making Unit/lit.site.cfg for Clang extra tools... sed: lit.tmp: No such file or directory Makefile:61: recipe for target 'Unit/lit.site.cfg' failed gmake[2]: *** [Unit/lit.site.cfg] Error 1 Strangely enough, this does not happen on amd64. Maybe it is some sort of race condition? Did anybody see this

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) > Native: All ok > Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok > > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) > All ok

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > On 07/ 8/11 05:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> Given that revision range, the only remotely likely culprit is 131463. >>  Which basically means that it "broke" because the default target >> features changed. > > And you are right here. 131463 == 131464 which is

On 07/ 8/11 05:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Given that revision range, the only remotely likely culprit is 131463. > Which basically means that it "broke" because the default target > features changed. And you are right here. 131463 == 131464 which is buggy. 131462 is OK. Thanks, Karel