similar to: [LLVMdev] compiler-rt tests in cmake?

Hi! The docs look strange to me - I don't indeed see any CMake support for running compiler-rt tests. Probably compiler-rt folks can comment on this... I think you should run compilert-rt tests manually by smth. like compiler-rt/test/Unit/test. CMake build system is able of running a bunch of sanitizer tests (AddressSanitizer, ThreadSanitizer etc.), and it assumes that compiler-rt is checked

> it assumes that compiler-rt is checked out to > llvm/projects/compiler-rt. Apparently, this is a problem. I have a patch for this ready. I'll send it to you and llvm-commits. Most of the tests pass with "make check-all" but the recently-added lsan tests are all failing. Do those fail for you as well? If so, can we XFAIL them for now and try to keep the "make

I blame this line in lsan/lit_tests/lit.cfg: # Setup attributes common for all compiler-rt projects. compiler_rt_lit_cfg = os.path.join(llvm_src_root, "projects", "compiler-rt", "lib", "lit.common.cfg") On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>wrote: > > On Fri, May 24,

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > > it assumes that compiler-rt is checked out to > > llvm/projects/compiler-rt. Apparently, this is a problem. > > I have a patch for this ready. I'll send it to you and llvm-commits. > Most of the tests pass with "make check-all" but the recently-added lsan > tests are

Okay, dropping gcc 4.4.3 makes sense. How do you feel about using clang 3.2 (and the upcoming 3.3) instead of tip-of-the-trunk clang? It looks like everything works great, but that you just need to make those UB tests 'unsupported' since they fail with "libclang_rt.ubsan was built without __int128 support". Thanks, Greg On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > When I build compiler-rt with clang 3.2, all lsan tests pass. The only > failing tests I see are in ubsan: > > Failing Tests (6): > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Float/cast-overflow.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/add-overflow.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

When I build compiler-rt with clang 3.2, all lsan tests pass. The only failing tests I see are in ubsan: Failing Tests (6): UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Float/cast-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/add-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/div-zero.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/sub-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. Using a fixed version allows you to build all clang/llvm/compiler-rt with one compiler. It simplifies the build process quite a bit. Also better for isolating regressions in compiler-rt, especially if you use git-bisect. Greg On May 29, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > UBsan tests work

> Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I can, but digging deeper I see that the compiler-rt sanitizer tests depend on just-built-clang for its object instrumentation. The next time the instrumentation changes, I'd expect those tests to break. If the lit tests that require -fsanitize were moved to the clang repo, then I think it'd be safe to build compiler-rt with clang 3.3 or gcc

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov < eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> > wrote: > > When I build compiler-rt with clang 3.2, all lsan tests pass. The only > > failing tests I see are in ubsan: > > > > Failing Tests (6): > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

> Android runtime is special, we build it in a separate build tree configured with > -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=$LLVM_CHECKOUT/cmake/platforms/Android.cmake This worked great, thanks! Would you mind tweaking Android.cmake so that I can override the location of the C compiler? The current version forces me to use the just-built-clang and that the new build directory be in a sibling directory.

UBsan tests work for me when I run "check-ubsan" in both build trees (the one with gcc 4.6.3 as a host compiler, and the one with fresh Clang). It's pretty convenient for us to use fresh Clang to configure LLVM and compiler-rt. One major reason is that autoconf/make build system always builds compiler-rt with just-built Clang. There are other benefits, like keeping sanitizers code

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. > Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I think that the reason selected UBSan tests fail under clang 3.2 is a bug in Clang, which was fixed (Richard may correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really want to mark these tests as "failing

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > > Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) > > I can, but digging deeper I see that the compiler-rt sanitizer tests > depend on just-built-clang for its object instrumentation. The next time > the instrumentation changes, I'd expect those tests to break. If the lit > tests that require

The sanitizer common and asan that mention 'thread' are failing for me this morning. How are your bots looking? Last good commit here was 512c616cacf70ca029a2bf719a482b902f3687cd. > You could try preprocessing your report with perl or sed to fix paths > to your binaries. It would be great to have an option for that in > asan_symbolize.py. > > As for addr2line, we just

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > The sanitizer common and asan that mention 'thread' are failing for me > this morning. How are your bots looking? Last good commit here was > 512c616cacf70ca029a2bf719a482b902f3687cd. > Hm, our bots seem to be green. Could you refer to guilty svn revision? > > > You could try

> Not that I know of, and I always build compiler-rt natively, together with Clang and LLVM. :( Do you mean "natively on ARM" or "natively on X86 with the ARM target enabled"? If the former, do you have a script to merge the target libs into the host's install directory? If the latter, that'll only build the X86 versions of the compiler-rt libraries. > Would

> We have plans to actually compile the symbolizer into the binary and do > in-process symbolization, but it's not there yet. nice! > I'm confused here. compiler-rt and clang/llvm instrumentation depend on each other These two projects don't need to be interdependent and, for the most part, they aren't. In the same way that llvm does not depend on clang, compiler-rt

Regarding Brad King's CMake patches for LLVM: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/173517 If compiler-rt could follow suit, the packaging for the toolchain becomes a nice, clean package-manager-friendly DAG. Currently, the compiler-rt CMake build depends on the just-built-clang to run its test suite. It's more intuitive to me that either: 1) compiler-rt's

> What is the exact line you use to configure build tree, and the output you see? cmake ../.. \ -G Ninja \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=ship \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \ -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \ -DLLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \ -DLLVM_TARGET_ARCH=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \ -DLLVM_LIT_ARGS=-v ninja check-all