similar to: [LLVMdev] Some MCJIT XPASS and one FAIL on Linux ARMv7

Hi, I've got the same 4 unexpected passing tests on the AArch64 buildbot. I checked the buildbot logs and before these tests started to fail all MCJIT tests were unsupported. I think that maybe this commit - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?revision=193459&view=revision <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?revision=193459&view=revision> caused the issue but I'm still

EE/JIT folks, When building release mode, 4 tests XPASS on ARM and I'm guessing is because they were relying on the assert being hit. Unexpected Passing Tests (4): LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-05-06-LivenessClobber.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-08-15-AllocaAssertion.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-08-23-RegisterAllocatePhysReg.ll LLVM ::

Hi Tim, I just read this thread and I see that you mentioned the buildbot and my name. > - LLVM test suite enabled in the buildbot and testing ARM64 (Gabor) What exactly I can do to help you with the merge process? Best regards, Gabor Ballabas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, Recent trunk has a lot of failures on PPC64/Linux. One seems to be crash with a backtrace like: [ 3149s] -- [ 3149s] 0 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0b864 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*) + 4294746876 [ 3149s] 1 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0bb1c [ 3149s] 2 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00003fff7ed0c520 [ 3149s] 3 linux-vdso64.so.1 0x00003fff7f7b0478 __kernel_sigtramp_rt64 + 0 [ 3149s] 4

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:14:18 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lots of regtest failures on PPC64/Linux > > Hi Ismail, > > Is

So, it seems David beat me to it, and the assert has already been removed, but the failures are still inconsistent. A9-check-all, compiled with GCC: Tests XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-common-symbols-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-ptr-reloc-remote.ll Unit-tests pass. A9-self-host, compiled with

On 18 May 2013 09:56, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > According to Amara that assertion was a bit of paranoia so we'd know > if someone tried emitting .rel relocations and sending the result > through MCJIT. However, now we routinely re-relocate using explicit > addends so as he says it can probably just be removed. > Hi Tim, Sorry, I saw that thread

Hi Gabor, It seems the linker is playing tricks on the full bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-aarch64-full Sometimes it works by cleaning the stage2 dir completely, but there may be some extra bits that we're not considering. However, I can't see why any of the commits on the first failure did anything to the relocations on AArhc64... cheers, --renato

I'm seeing more XPASSes on ExecutionEngine on ARM, but only on Release mode, not Release+Assert: $ grep XPASS final/logs/llvm.check-Phase3-Release.log XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-05-06-LivenessClobber.ll (10862 of 14500) XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-08-15-AllocaAssertion.ll (10868 of 14500) XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/2003-08-23-RegisterAllocatePhysReg.ll (10870 of 14500)

Building r80796 of the "release_26" branch on Ubuntu 9.04, I'm getting an XPASS on: ssen at ssen:~/llvm/build$ make TESTONE=FrontendC/2009-08-11- AsmBlocksComplexJumpTarget.c check-one make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ssen/llvm/build/test' Making a new site.exp file... XPASS: /home/ssen/llvm/test/FrontendC/2009-08-11- AsmBlocksComplexJumpTarget.c make[1]: Leaving directory

I finally had time to reproduce the failure in... http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15817 under x86_64 Fedora 15 linux and it fails the same way as under x86_64-apple-darwin*... XPASS: Polly :: Isl/CodeGen/scevcodegen-1.ll (126 of 249) ******************** TEST 'Polly :: Isl/CodeGen/scevcodegen-1.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: -- opt -load

Hi Gabor, I noticed that one particular test fails intermittently on the AArch64 bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-aarch64-full FAIL: Profile:: instrprof-set-filename-then-reset-default.c Some times on stage1, others on stage2, others no fail at all. All the commits during these builds are not related to profiling or AArch64, so I believe this has something to do with the

On 10.02.2015 13:51, Gabor Ballabas wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I have a question regarding the submission deadline. > We plan to create and bring a poster to the conference about the > LLVM-related work of our University (University of Szeged, Hungary). > Do we have to upload the full poster before the deadline or would an > abstract be enough for the evaluation process? An

FWIW this passes with trunk now (bootstrapped with clang). On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM, İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> wrote: > This is with Linux on BeagleBone Black (Cortex-A8), regressed recently: > > > FAIL: LLVM :: MC/ARM/basic-arm-instructions.s (5404 of 8944) > ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: MC/ARM/basic-arm-instructions.s' FAILED >

Hi All, I started to work on code-size improvements on ARM target by comparing GCC and LLVM generated code. My first candidate was switch-case lowering. I also created a Bugzilla issue for this topic: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34902 The full example code and the generated assembly for GCC and for LLVM is in the Bugzilla issue. My first idea was to simplify the following

Hi, On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Richard Sandiford < rsandifo at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> writes: > > Using openSUSE 13.1 on s390x machine I get two new regressions with llvm > > 3.4rc1: > > Hmm, I don't see this locally. Just to rule out one possibility, > which compiler are you using to build? Do you see the

Hi, In the process of looking at whether it's reasonable to make ARM use MCJIT by default, I was trying to check that x86-64 uses MCJIT by default (ie, lli doesn't need an explicit -use-mcjit to be passed). However, after instrumenting the constructors for both JIT and MCJIT, either lli doesn't default to using MCJIT on x86-64 or The construction/non-construction of a JIT/MCJIT object

Out of curiosity, I'm replacing the JIT with MCJIT on my compiler. As all "external" functions are provided by the language's FFI mechanism, it does MyExecutionEngine->DisableSymbolSearching(); MyExecutionEngine->InstallLazyFunctionCreator(&MyLazyFunctionCreator); which works fine with the JIT. However, MCJIT insists on resolving unknown symbols by searching them

Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two > alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would > it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile > an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? +lang. My understanding is that

When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: