similar to: [LLVMdev] code coverage instrumentation

Hello, I''m trying to run the latest/greatest mongrel version: % sudo gem install mongrel ... Successfully installed mongrel-1.1 % gem list mongrel mongrel (1.1) % ruby -v ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [powerpc-darwin7.9.0] % uname -a Darwin NewYork.local 7.9.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005; root:xnu/xnu-517.12.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

Hey Luis, Just implemented the first cut at a graceful stop setup. It seems to mostly work except for a few hicups here and there which I''ll test out. I''ve tested this under OSX and will test on the other platforms soon. To use it take a look at the examples/simpletest.rb and see how I setup an "INT" handler to call HttpServer.stop. Hopefully this will help with

I think the simplest fix is something like this: diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp index c6f0d17f8fe..e81957ab80a 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp @@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ SanitizerCoverageModule::CreateSecStartEnd(Module

Hey Folks, This is a quick release that fixes a major bug. I forgot to require the timeout library properly in mongrel.rb so people using Mongrel outside of Rails would see pauses. 0.3.3 fixes this all up. The 0.3.3 release also has a small change to the examples/simpletest.rb file with some gzip response using Ruby''s zlib support. Curious what people think about this and whether it

Hi! I'm trying to run LLVM test suite under AddressSanitizer and get test failures in: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/simpletest-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-data-align-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp-no-external-funcs-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll All of them fail with assertion: lli:

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > >> I think the simplest fix is something like this: >> >> diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp >>

Hi, I am experiencing an error in the mongrel_rails script on a pc under cygwin/mongrel/rails. My installation details and error are as follows: With some guidance from various blogposts out there, I installed Cygwin on a Windows XP box followed by: Ruby 1.8.4(via cygwin setup), Gems (0.8.1 via ruby install.rb), Mongrel .3.12.4 (via gems), Rake 0.7.1(via gems, GemPlugin (via gems), Rails (via

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20

Here's the failing tests for rc2 on SLES11.3 (glibc 2.11, libstdc++4.7). I've done some amount of triaging what some critical elements of the failures are. Unabridged log is attached. Failing Tests (94): LLVM-Unit :: ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcJITTests/DummyRPC.TestAsyncIntInt LLVM-Unit :: ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcJITTests/DummyRPC.TestAsyncVoidBool LLVM-Unit ::

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > >> wrote:

Hi Alexey, I think the most likely way to resolve this is to have the RecordingMemoryManager do something more complex to manage its allocations in such a way as to guarantee that they are all within proximity of one another. The code that is asserting is handling a relocation where code was generated to use a 32-bit relative offset in 64-bit code. If the two sections involved really are more

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 ::

Hi Andrew, Looks like RecordingMemoryManager in lli just calls malloc() and it would be strange to make assumptions (or enforce) that the difference between two returned pointers in 64-bit virtual address space will be fit into 32 bits. Can we do smth similar to what Adhemerval proposed (see the special case in processRelocationRef for ELF::R_PPC64_REL24 relocations)? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at

I have the seleniumrc_fu plugin installed and setup according to the instructions, and can run the selenium:test task if there are no test cases. My first test case simply does an open_home_page to verify that things are working at all. Unfortuniately there seems to be an issue with even this simple a test case. The following suggests that there is an issue with the getNewBrowserSession

Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> writes: > Justin, > Calling appendToUsed has horrible complexity and if we call it in > every function clang consumes tons of memory (6Gb when compiling one > of the clang's source files). This killed my machine today :) > > The solution is to call appendToUsed once per module, instead of once > per function. Oh right,

Hey Folks, Another announcement of Mongrel -- the fastest little web server library for Ruby yet. This release is nice in that it should build on win32 better and it now sports a small DirHandler that can serve directories and files. This means Mongrel is closer to replacing WEBrick as a Rails debug runner. You can get the releases and information from: *

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort > for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I’d like to > avoid it whenever possible.**** > > ** ** > > What I meant in my previous message was that I’d have > RecordingMemoryManager use

So far I''ve been doing my controller testing against "real" (testing) objects; however, I''ve been beginning to wonder if I should "default" to using mocks in most cases -- both for performence and to enforce a looser coupling. In part this is driven by my viewpoint that rail''s "functional" tests are still "unit" tests, so they

Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I'd like to avoid it whenever possible. What I meant in my previous message was that I'd have RecordingMemoryManager use something other than malloc (such as the memory API used by SectionMemoryManager) to keep section near one another. -Andy From:

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > Interesting. > This is a relatively new addition (fsanitize-coverage=pc-tables, which is now a part of -fsanitize=fuzzer). > The tests worked (did they? On Mac?) so I thought everything is ok. For tests we never compile the tested target with -O3 (and that wouldn’t be sufficient), and for