similar to: [LLVMdev] check-all is failing on Windows: is it expected?

The tests have worked fine on Windows for a while now when building with an MSVC environment. As for the tests failing, what tests are failing for you? Can you pastebin the results? I have seen issues with MSVC11, but not MSVC10. Thanks! ~Aaron On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Last time I checked, running the tests on

Last time I checked, running the tests on Windows with MSVC was a PITA. The test scripts still expect a UNIX-like environment, so a lot of tests fail. If that has been rectified, someone please let me know! I would imagine it should work much better with cygwin, or mingw with a bash shell and utils. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: >

Alright, that's good news! When was this fixed? On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>wrote: > The tests have worked fine on Windows for a while now when building > with an MSVC environment. As for the tests failing, what tests are > failing for you? Can you pastebin the results? I have seen issues > with MSVC11, but not MSVC10. >

It's been working for me for almost two years now. You do have to have the proper prereqs in place, of course (like GnuWin32, Python, etc). ~Aaron On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, that's good news! When was this fixed? > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at

"Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case. I think MSVC 2010 is a reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target for C++11 features." Bah, they can install Mingw binaries. Marcus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/eb78b89f/attachment.html>

>From the DeveloperPolicy.html document I gathered I need to send a patch to this list (which I did); could you clarify if I misunderstood it? The second patch is really trivial and I think it's worth applying - it seems like a typo by someone who tested on MSVC 11 but not 10; or maybe my local instance of MSVC10 is somehow deficient, of course. The first patch is adding MSVC-specific

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment here? > > Unless I'm misreading the buildbots, we don't actually have anything > trying to build with MSVC. Have we considered how

The original thread on this ICE, including a link to the bug submitted to MS is here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-December/056683.html Michael From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Sergiy Migdalskiy Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:28 To: David Blaikie Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Patch to compile LLVM

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences > >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment > here? > > > > Unless

"Daniels, Marcus G" <mdaniels at lanl.gov> writes: >> "Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case. I think MSVC 2010 is >> a reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target >> for C++11 features." IMO, the only meaty C++11 feature that VS2012 adds over VS2010 is range-based for-loops. > Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.

Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by > then... > > -bw > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > Are there

Bill, Are there any chances that you complete it before 3.4 is branched? On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Thanks for answering. To make sure that we are on the same page, let's > agree on definitions :) Here, by

FYI: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066389.html Please read and let me know you comments. -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I

Nadav, You are absolutely right, it's ISPC workload. I've checked SSE4 and it's also severely affected. We use intrinsics only for conversion <N x i32> <=> i32, i.e. movmsk.ps. For the rest we use general LLVM instructions. And I actually would really like to stick this way. We rely on LLVM's ability to produce efficient code from general LLVM IR. Relying on

Hello Erik, Thank you to work. I have not checked to build them, though, I can tell you some comments, excuse me. * General - Please post patches to cfe-commits and to llvm-commits, too. (IMHO it would not be needed to split articles apart each lists as long as each would be related.) - If you can, please attach files w/o CRLF(dos encodings), or with attached text/plain. - You may

Nadav, The problem appears only for vectors longer than available hardware register (in doubleword elements, i.e. more than 4 on SSE4 and more than 8 on AVX). Select does weird thing. <8 x i1> mask comes as two XMM registers, select converts them to a single XMM registers (i.e. 8 x 16 bit), immediately after it converts back to two XMM registers and does blend. Conversion forth and back has

Hi Dmitry, I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by then... -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > Are there any chances that you complete it before 3.4 is branched? > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at

Hi Nadav, ISPC is generating long vectors (on corresponding ISPC targets) this way since the every beginning of ISPC as far as I know. There's no such things in official LLVM documents as "illegal vectors", so people do expect that arbitrary long vectors are supported and generated reasonably well. Note, not super-optimal, but reasonably well. Keeping it this way allows considering

Hi all, I run a build bot which updates and builds trunk llvm on a variety of OSes once every four hours. The windows build has been broken since r246156: http://104.154.46.123:8010/builders/win-64-trunk. A full clean didn't seem to fix it. Neither did several more recent updates (I'm currently building at 246208). The specific error is at the end of this log:

When using MS VS2010 there is an issue with std: `SuccIterator` implements a partial assignment operator: inline const _Self &operator=(const _Self &I) { assert(Term == I.Term &&"Cannot assign iterators to two different blocks!"); idx = I.idx; return *this; } For copy construction, MS VS2010 std reserves the right, and sometimes calls, a