similar to: [LLVMdev] Disable LNT tests individually

On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:57, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, David, > > Is there any way of disabling some individual tests on specific architectures? > > Zero cost exception handling on ARM is known to be broken and there isn't anyone I know working on it with high priority, so it's likely to be that way for a long time. > > For that

On 2 April 2013 19:20, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > What is it that makes the output of the program asynchronous? The output > is deterministic on Darwin, so it seems like it should be possible to make > it more stable. > This is a virus scan and, AFAICS, depends on the order in which the INODEs are laid out in the directory. I'm not sure there is a way to

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

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 12 March 2013 16:48, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > >> The former mode is historically what the test suite did, the latter mode >> is substantially faster (and independent of bugs in the native CC). >> > > Yes, I agree this is better for many cases, but

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 2 April 2013 19:20, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > >> What is it that makes the output of the program asynchronous? The output >> is deterministic on Darwin, so it seems like it should be possible to make >> it more stable. >> > > This is a virus

On 12 March 2013 19:21, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > +1 > > There are a couple of example implementations here which are only a few > lines long: > http://wiki.osdev.org/Random_Number_Generator I was going to rant about the quality of simple LCGs but it seems that *all* standard implementations rely on that, so the argument of using a standard library against a

On 17 June 2013 19:01, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > There are several individual users who still use the full Makefile > infrastructure. I think we pretty much use LNT exclusively for automated > runs now, but for development purposes the Makefile setup still has various > features that make it more amenable to incremental development. > Hi Daniel, I have

Hi all, Looking into ClamAV, it seems that the output is highly asynchronous, so a simple diff is obviously bogus. Since the output is mainly a report of what's happening, without any logical sequence, I can sort both outputs and diff them, for a similar (though not perfect) result. If you sort clamscan.out-nat and clamscan.out-simple, you'll see that they're identical. I'm not

On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:48, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: On 12 March 2013 19:21, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > +1 > > There are a couple of example implementations here which are only a few > lines long: > http://wiki.osdev.org/Random_Number_Generator I was going to rant about the quality of simple LCGs but it seems that *all* standard

On 12 March 2013 16:48, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > The former mode is historically what the test suite did, the latter mode > is substantially faster (and independent of bugs in the native CC). > Yes, I agree this is better for many cases, but not for all. Implementing RNG that is good enough for the tests' purposes, fast enough not to steal the

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 12 March 2013 15:28, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> Can't we just paste in a RNG so that we'll get the same output on all >> systems (and can still use the reference output)? >> > > We can, though other tests suffer from the same issue. Would be good

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

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 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

Wow, that sounds great! Thanks for working on this, and yes, please, send the patches! --renato On 30 April 2013 16:23, Murali, Sriram <sriram.murali at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel,**** > > I made some changes to the LNT perf reporting tool to make it more user > friendly by adding some features:**** > > **1. **Make the sidebar and the navigation bar stationary,

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

Hi Renato, What is it that makes the output of the program asynchronous? The output is deterministic on Darwin, so it seems like it should be possible to make it more stable. I'm not really a fan of doing any more transformations on the output than we have to, because it just pushes complexity into the test suite infrastructure. - Daniel On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Renato Golin

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

Hi Daniel, I made some changes to the LNT perf reporting tool to make it more user friendly by adding some features: 1. Make the sidebar and the navigation bar stationary, so that it is easy to navigate the site 2. Have the pop-down menu for the items in the navigation bar, activate upon hovering the mouse, rather than clicking the item 3. Add a nav-link in the sidebar for the

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