Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] !!! 3.2 Release RC3 source code available for download and testing"
2012 Dec 29
1
[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 Dec 30
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release RC3 source code available for download and testing
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
>
2012 Dec 30
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release RC3 source code available for download and testing
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:
> >
> >>
2015 Jan 31
12
[LLVMdev] [3.6 Release] RC2 has been tagged, Testing Phase II begins
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
2012 Apr 04
2
[LLVMdev] "make check" fails at CodeGen/Generic/dbg-declare.ll (r153997 on PPC)
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 ; \
2015 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] [3.6 Release] RC2 has been tagged, Testing Phase II begins
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:
2013 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] Make check reports an error
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
2011 Mar 14
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 RC1 Pre-release Tarballs
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
2012 Apr 04
0
[LLVMdev] "make check" fails at CodeGen/Generic/dbg-declare.ll (r153997 on PPC)
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
2012 Apr 16
1
[LLVMdev] "make check" fails at CodeGen/Generic/dbg-declare.ll (r153997 on PPC)
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.
>
>>
2013 Feb 01
4
[LLVMdev] Asserts in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc()
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
2011 Mar 16
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 RC1 Pre-release Tarballs
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$
2010 Nov 13
2
[LLVMdev] powerpc32: llvm-2.8 make-check failures
-----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
2014 Feb 21
6
[LLVMdev] make check issue with llvm-cov
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
2011 Mar 15
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 RC1 Pre-release Tarballs
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
2011 Jul 22
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM on ARM testing.
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)
2015 Aug 22
2
[lldb-dev] [3.7 Release] RC3 has been tagged, let's wrap this up
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
2016 Mar 01
2
[Release-testers] [3.8 Release] RC3 has been tagged
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
2011 Jul 08
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM on ARM testing.
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
2011 Jul 08
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM on ARM testing.
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