similar to: [LLVMdev] Test failures with 3.4.1

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Test failures with 3.4.1"

2014 Apr 10
3
[LLVMdev] Test failures with 3.4.1
On 10/04/2014 16:32, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:47:19PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Trying the 3.4.1 branch, I get following tests failing: >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/2009-06-05-VZextByteShort.ll >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/fma4-intrinsics-x86_64.ll >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/fp-fast.ll >> LLVM ::
2013 Dec 25
2
[LLVMdev] http://llvm.org/apt/ with 'old' gcc: Request for comments
Hello, Just a quick refresh, on llvm.org/apt/ [1], I am rebuilding the sources of LLVM to create snapshot packages for the stable branches and development branches (currently, 3.4, in the hope of point releases and 3.5). This currently targets 2 releases of Debian and 4 of Ubuntu [2] and the llvm toolchain is built using the compiler shipped with the distribution. Following the recent
2013 Dec 26
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] http://llvm.org/apt/ with 'old' gcc: Request for comments
After some thinking on this idea, it would not work because I need / want to use Debian/Ubuntu package to do the build and clang 3.4 is not built on these architecture :( So, if I bootstrap clang 3.4, I will have a dependency on libstdc++ 4.8... :/ On 25/12/2013 22:23, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi Sylvestre, > > The easiest is probably to have a dependency to (and use)
2012 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] Help needed on debugging llvm
Hi Anitha, > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.____cgi?id=14185 > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.__cgi?id=14185> > > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show___bug.cgi?id=14185 > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14185>> > I am stuck on analysis. Does any one have alternate suggestions > on debugging >
2014 May 12
4
[LLVMdev] Name of the libraries + soname? 3.4.1 ?
On 12/05/2014 16:13, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from >>>> libLLVM-3.4.so to
2016 Mar 29
6
Status of the official LLVM APT repositories
Hi Sylvestre, On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > I am working on it as we speak. Hopefully, most of the 3.8 & 3.9 > packages are going to be green by next week. Any updates on that? It appears that Precise repositories are now in order, but all the others (and, most importantly, Trusty) are still not updated. Also, 3.9 packages are not mentioned on the web page,
2016 Jun 10
5
[Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
Hi, I had a quick look at that link and it seems to be a linker internal error. Presumably we're triggering a bug in the system toolchain. FWIW, my mipsel build on a Debian Jessie machine (binutils 2.24.90.20141023-1) successfully completed test-release.sh. I'm currently running the tests. Here's the relevant bit of the log from your link: cd
2014 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] Name of the libraries + soname? 3.4.1 ?
On 12/05/2014 17:12, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:17:05PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 16:13, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
2014 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] Name of the libraries + soname? 3.4.1 ?
On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> Hello, >> >> With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from >> libLLVM-3.4.so to libLLVM-3.4.1.so. In parallel, the soname has been >> updated to >> reflect this change. >> >> AFAIK, we kept the ABI compatible from 3.4
2013 Jan 31
2
[LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:26:15 AM > > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features > > > > The problem I'm trying to
2014 May 12
3
[LLVMdev] Name of the libraries + soname? 3.4.1 ?
Hello, With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from libLLVM-3.4.so to libLLVM-3.4.1.so. In parallel, the soname has been updated to reflect this change. AFAIK, we kept the ABI compatible from 3.4 to 3.4.1. So, is there any reason for doing it? This caused some breakages in Debian (basically, breaking some X because of mesa could not link against LLVM due to the new soname).
2013 Jan 31
2
[LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features
The problem I'm trying to solve: Invoking clang on PowerPC with -fno-altivec has no effect. >From what I've been able to piece together, PPC.td specifies various CPUs and the processor features available on each. So for example we have: def FeatureAltivec : SubtargetFeature<"altivec","HasAltivec", "true",
2016 Apr 13
2
Status of the official LLVM APT repositories
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 at 08:10 Amaury SECHET via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'd like to shime in here. These apt repository used to contain packages > named llvm-3.8-tools containing, amongst other things, the lit python > library used to test llvm. It seems that it went away recently and I have > travis build failing because of this. > > What is
2012 Nov 07
3
[LLVMdev] Help needed on debugging llvm
On 6 November 2012 14:53, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Anitha, > > > On 05/11/12 10:29, Anitha Boyapati wrote: > >> >> >> On 5 November 2012 14:32, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr >> <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi Anitha, >> >> >>
2016 Jun 12
2
[cfe-dev] [Release-testers] 3.8.1-rc1 has been tagged
> Test suite is green but I'm seeing two libc++ test failures when running check-all. What tests are failing? On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Nikola Smiljanic via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Uploaded Fedora and openSUSE binaries. Test suite is green but I'm seeing > two libc++ test failures when running check-all. I'm pretty sure these were >
2016 Apr 13
3
Status of the official LLVM APT repositories
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 at 09:38 Amaury SECHET <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd be happy to do it, but this is a bit much high level for me to be > actionable. Can you explain me what I should do to reintroduce them int he > debian packaging ? > On the CMake side, I'm not sure. I think it's just a matter of using the "install()" functions to install them
2013 Jan 31
2
[LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:23 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 10:17 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > > > Sent:
2014 May 05
4
[LLVMdev] Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty packages broken
On 02/05/2014 11:26, Adam Strzelecki wrote: >> It should be fixed. Can you confirm? > > Nope. Sorry. Still doesn't work here: > > Get:3 http://llvm.org/apt/trusty/ llvm-toolchain-trusty/main libllvm3.5 amd64 1:3.5~svn207822-1~exp1 [7,300 kB] > Get:4 http://llvm.org/apt/trusty/ llvm-toolchain-trusty/main llvm-3.5-runtime amd64 1:3.5~svn207822-1~exp1 [52.0 kB] > Get:5
2016 May 19
2
Coverage Update on http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/
> On May 19, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote: > > Le 16/05/2016 à 19:19, Mehdi Amini a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> Anyone knows who is involved with this page on llvm.org? Which bot is updating it? (it seems stalled right now) > This is now fixed: http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ > I skimmed the results, and it seems that there
2013 Oct 06
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.3 in llvm.org Ubuntu APT repository
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote: > I did some cleanup of the repositories today (Sunday). > I remove all the 3.3 snapshots which were wrong (they were older than the > official 3.3 release and not maintained). > I didn't think that anybody was using them (Looks like I was wrong, sorry!). No problem, we were just using them