similar to: [LLVMdev] Disabling assertions fixes some XFAILs on ARMv7

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 ::

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)

On 06/18/2012 07:21 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > make check-all LIT_ARGS=--param=jit_impl=mcjit Thanks. When I run this on x86 ubuntu, there are 47 failures. Failing Tests (47): LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2002-12-16-ArgTest.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-ArgumentBug.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/2003-01-04-LoopTest.ll LLVM ::

I think you mean to say: make check-all LIT_ARGS=--param=jit_impl=use-mcjit On 06/18/2012 08:24 PM, reed kotler wrote: > On 06/18/2012 07:21 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: >> make check-all LIT_ARGS=--param=jit_impl=mcjit > Thanks. > > When I run this on x86 ubuntu, there are 47 failures. > > Failing Tests (47): > LLVM ::

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >> Sebastian, this looks like it is most likely some kind of fallout from >> your changes. > > Thanks for letting me know about these failing testcases. > > In the logs of the buildbot: >

Hi Daniel, > Sebastian, this looks like it is most likely some kind of fallout from > your changes. Thanks for letting me know about these failing testcases. In the logs of the buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-build-x86_64-darwin10-x-mingw32-x-armeabi/builds/273/steps/run.build.step.configure_llvm_1/logs/stdio I see that the bot is configuring llvm with:

I actually tend to agree with spop, it's cleaner to compute things at runtime than at compile time. One particular reason is wanting to pick the best target CPU for the current arch (which may not be what was compiled for). The current JIT target selection logic is really gross, I do believe that it tried to do this, but it probably needs some spring cleaning. Sebastian, can you try and take

Hi, I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and have the following test results to share. Summary below, full log at: http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt The only edits required were those I posted to llvm-commits yesterday (re: "some missing clang libs"). And I also edited LitConfig.py to point to

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

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

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 04:56:53PM -0700, reed kotler wrote: > I don't see any tests in either test or test-suite for -use-mcjit. For ARM, we need to manually switch to use mcjit, say $ make check-all LIT_ARGS=--param=jit_impl=mcjit Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799

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

Hi, Testing llvm trunk on openSUSE 13.1 ARMv7 I got 4 unexpected passes: Unexpected Passing Tests (4): LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/cross-module-sm-pic-a.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/multi-module-sm-pic-a.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/remote/cross-module-sm-pic-a.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/remote/multi-module-sm-pic-a.ll And one FAIL: Failing Tests (1): LLVM ::

I don't see any tests in either test or test-suite for -use-mcjit. Are we not testing this yet? There are lots of other llc options. What is our plan for testing these?

I.e., I see this when I run `git fetch`: ``` $ git fetch -v llvm.org From http://llvm.org/git/llvm = [up to date] master -> llvm.org/master = [up to date] release_1 -> llvm.org/release_1 = [up to date] release_16 -> llvm.org/release_16 = [up to date] release_20 -> llvm.org/release_20 = [up to date] release_21 -> llvm.org/release_21 = [up to date]

I think we have located the revision which fixes this regression: r206094 (or commit 6bb00df in llvm-mirror on GitHub). I have attached a patch which can be applied to the current release_34 branch (tested against the release_34 branch in llvm-mirror). With this patch the attached reg-alloc-test.ll file doesn't fail with the "LLVM ERROR: ran out of registers during register

> On 2016-Feb-05, at 15:22, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > That usually happens when someone deletes and then recreates an svn branch with the same name, as happened in r215001 and r215011. > It can be deleted now, if anyone wants to. ``` $ git push llvm.org :release_35 at 215010 fatal: unable to access 'http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git/': The requested

Yep, quite right, Evan. Any regalloc differences due to that patch are purely coincidence; -Jim > On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Niklas, > > The attached patch has nothing to do with register allocation. r206094 changes how cpu auto-detection is done. I believe it's now the responsibility of the tools (e.g. llc) to

Hello, A strange problem appears when upgrading from release_34 to testing. Some transformations to bitcode files cause registered global_ctors to not be called. Here's an example (I've also attached the complete example and pasted it below): This works: clang -fsanitize=address -flto -c -o sum.o sum.c clang -fsanitize=address -o sum sum.o This doesn't work: clang

> Seems release_34 is orphan in llvm.git and clang.git. Could you tweak them? They will be created as soon as there will be commits to them. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University