similar to: Running llvm test-suite

Hi, I need help debugging a problem a problem that only shows up on PowerPC with one of my commits in the generic CodeGen parts of llvm. I'd apreciate it if someone with access to a PowerPC system could take a look at this: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23097 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D23097> - Matthias -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I updated the docs to show a pip/svn install like this: pip install svn+http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lnt/trunk <svn+http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lnt/trunk> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > > >> On 18 Jul 2017, at 20:21, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org <mailto:daniel at zuster.org>> wrote:

I'd be fine pulling the pypi (sic) entry, shall I make it so? - Daniel On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:06 AM Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > Yep, we should pull that package down, or start to update it. > > The docs builds work for me. Is it possible that is not in your venv or > something like that? > > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Matthias

Hi, working on the LNT documentation I am wondering about a few things: - LNT documentation recommends to do `easy_install lnt==0.4.2dev` (in the install box on the left side of the title page). The last available version of LNT on pypy is version 0.4.0 from 2012. Are there plans to keep this up to date or should we better remove the entry and not mention pypy packages anymore? - Building the

> On May 12, 2016, at 11:21 PM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > As we understood great changes will be done in LNT, so we are waiting to new LNT version and stopped our work in LNT. > > One more question about using test-suite separately with cmake. Cmake can only build all tests and generate lit tests. After that we

Hi Eugene, It is strange, I also do a clean build with CMake+make with r301734 and it is ok. Could you provide more details? Thanks Hongbin On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, Michael! > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> > wrote: > > 2017-04-29 0:49

> On May 25, 2016, at 1:54 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > Thank you for your answer. > But can you answer for some more questions? > First of all, now LNT uses make-style of running tests and parse results from result csv file. Are there any plans to go to cmake? As James already said "lnt runtest

2017-05-01 20:16 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi, Hongbin! > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eugene, >> >> It is strange, I also do a clean build with CMake+make with r301734 and it >> is ok. Could you provide more details? >> >> Thanks >>

Hi Elena, > First of all, now LNT uses make-style of running tests and parse results from result csv file. Are there any plans to go to cmake? There are two test drivers in LNT. "lnt runtests nt" uses the old Makefile-based system and "lnt runtests test-suite" uses the new cmake-based system. It sounds like you are using the former and should switch to the latter.

Hi Matthias, Thank you for your answer. But can you answer for some more questions? First of all, now LNT uses make-style of running tests and parse results from result csv file. Are there any plans to go to cmake? As I understood lit will run and collect all metrics, but there is no opportunity to make any settings for choosing what metrics I would like to collect. Test reports files allow to

(kcc, george: sorry for the re-send, the first was from a non-list email address) My configuration for building the fuzzers in the LLVM tree doesn't seem to work any more (possibly as of moving libFuzzer to compiler-rt, but there have been a few other changes in the last week or so that may be related). I'm building with a fresh top-of-tree clang and setting -DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=Address

Should have changed the subject line... --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sergei Larin > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:29 PM > To: 'Tobias Grosser' > Cc: 'llvmdev'

I understood your modules and I see as them can be used in LNT. But there are some question about old features. 1. With Makefiles we can write pass and collect some statistics. There was an example of branch pass. Metrics can be collected by @-$(LOPT) -load dcc888$(SHLIBEXT) -branch-counter -stats \ -time-passes -disable-output $< 2>>$@ in makefile. In report file we write how

> On May 26, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I understood your modules and I see as them can be used in LNT. But there are some question about old features. > 1. With Makefiles we can write pass and collect some statistics. There was an example of branch pass. Metrics can be collected by > @-$(LOPT) -load

Hi folks, I noticed our test-suite bot is failing randomly when getting a timeout on the install phase: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt/builds/666/steps/venv.lnt.install/logs/stdio Downloading/unpacking Werkzeug>=0.6.1 (from Flask->LNT==0.4.1dev) Exception: File

Hi, There was a new Python setuptools release (36.0.0) today, that caused this compatibility issue. The suggestion to stop breaking the builds is to add a static setuptools version on lnt's requirements.client.txt. The latest known compatible version is 35.0.2. I have tested it building a LNT sandbox and it seems to works. setuptools==35.0.2 I'll create a bug on LNT so we can

Greetings everyone, We would like to improve LNT. The following RFC describes two LNT enhancements: * Custom (extensible) metrics * Test parameterization The main idea is in document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zWWfu_iBQhFaHo73mhqqcL6Z82thHNAoCxaY7BveSf4/edit?usp=sharing. Thanks, Elena. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

+Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > David, > > I got some more work on the Livermore Loops and I found out that the issue > is the difference in the parameters between a single step and a

Hi Sergei, On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Should have changed the subject line... > > --- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted > by > The Linux Foundation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

To weigh in here... On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some > thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > David, > > > >