similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-test lemon

If you can help get it working on big-endian systems, we should be able to remove the XFAIL. That seems like the cleanest way out of this. Yuchen sent a patch to llvm-commits on 12/19/13. (I can resend it to you if you don’t have that.) Can you try that out on a BE mips system? On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com> wrote: > On 02/21/2014 02:58 AM, Daniel

> > And in the test file there is a line: > > XFAIL: powerpc64, s390x, mips, sparc > > This is a crude attempt at "XFAIL: big-endian". The mips entry here is just > wrong if the system is little-endian - the test passes on little-endian machines > and fails on big-endian. This is obviously a problem. 'XFAIL: mips' counts as an XFAIL for all mips targets

rkotler at mipsswbrd006-le:~/caviumllvm/build/test$ make Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest 'lit.site.cfg' file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -s 8192 ; \ /usr/bin/python /home/rkotler/workspace/llvm/utils/lit/lit.py -s -v . ) XPASS: LLVM :: tools/llvm-cov/llvm-cov.test (8916 of 9784) ******************** TEST

Hi, I've been toying around with the testsuite for a bit, and after recompiling llvm-gcc a bunch of times and fixing a nasty bashism bug, I actually got it to run and pass most tests. When running, I noticed a very long runtime on the lemon test. At first I suspected an infinite loop, but it turned out the test simply needed around 1000 seconds to run. Some investigation turned out that the

On May 21, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi, > > I've been toying around with the testsuite for a bit, and after > recompiling > llvm-gcc a bunch of times and fixing a nasty bashism bug, I actually > got it to > run and pass most tests. > > When running, I noticed a very long runtime on the lemon test. At > first I > suspected an infinite

Evan Cheng wrote: > On May 21, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I've been toying around with the testsuite for a bit, and after >> recompiling >> llvm-gcc a bunch of times and fixing a nasty bashism bug, I actually >> got it to >> run and pass most tests. >> >> When running, I noticed a very long

This concerns the contributed package "concord". Sorry to bother you with it, but my attempt to contact the author/maintainer failed (see below). Perhaps you can forward it, or let me know where to send it. Regards, Rob Kushler ------------------------------------------------------ This is the Postfix program at host tak.itd.uts.edu.au. I'm sorry to have to inform you that

On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I cannot think of any situation where a universally failing test > should be in-tree unless it is a bug that someone is expecting to fix. It seems moderately common to mark something XFAIL temporarily to get the bots green while then going ahead to fix the issue. Your proposal would add

On 03/19/2015 09:57 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

Well, you are an mclinker contributor and Google uses mclinker and now it's broken as the result of your change. I still don't see any justification to making a change in a public interface that is used by other non LLVM projects to fix some issue with clang warnings. People should be able to derive from those classes. I can't understand your reasoning as to why these classes must

On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > Well, you are an mclinker contributor > > > Me personally? Not that I know of. Sorry. I thought i had seen your name in an mclinker commit. > > and Google uses mclinker >

I understand that but falling back makes the compilation slower. I'm wondering what could be done to remove this restriction about fast-isel not being able to handle non legal types. ________________________________________ From: Anton Korobeynikov [anton at korobeynikov.info] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:55 AM To: Reed Kotler Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] lowering

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >

Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an immutable pass. Not sure how to reconcile this with fact that there will be different answers needed depending on the subtarget. Seems like BasicTansformInfoClass should become a function pass that does not modify anything. On 03/22/2013 09:43 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > Another way to do this would to be to have a reset virtual function >

On 04/02/2013 03:31 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > On 04/02/2013 03:00 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> How do you add a target dependent transform pass? >> >> tia. >> >> eed > > I need to add a module pass. Do you need to just add them to the Transform subdirectory????

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision carefully and before the 1.4 release. Here are the pros and cons in my eyes, please feel free to add your