similar to: Llvm build is broken (at least on FreeBSD)

I'm seeing some test failures for unit tests for msan (check-msan) happening in googletest, which I find weird. I'm on Arch Linux, with r342711. Below is one type of error that I see. The full log is 416MB (!) big. My guess is that those errors are related, but if anyone needs the full log, I'll provide it. Here is a reduced log from the end:

Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:57: In file included from

$(llvm-config --libs | tr " " "\n" | grep gtest) returns: -lgtest_main -lgtest instead of non-valid: -lLLVMgtest_main -lLLVMgtest It also fixes: $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest_main --- unittests/Makefile.unittest | 2 +- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/componentinfo.py | 4 ++-- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py |

On 30 June 2014 16:16, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I think you are hitting a bug, the Observer pattern was added a few weeks > back, and may be there is some sort of uninitialized variable ? This is my back-trace at "-O2 -g" (since -O1 pass): operator() (file=<optimized out>, __closure=0x7fffffffde40) at

+eugenis I see this while running 'check-msan'. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) > > In file included from > > /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: > In file included from > >

Hi folks, I'm using gcc 4.8.1 and I'm getting these warnings on every googletest file: src/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-typed-test.h:239:47: warning: anonymous variadic macros were introduced in C99 [-Wvariadic-macros] # define REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_CASE_P(CaseName, ...) \ ^ It seems a gtest infrastructure file, so maybe

Hello, It looks like compiler-rt CMake scripts don't take CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS into account. This is because clang_compile and clang_link_shared functions call the newly-built compiler directly, and they don't add those flags. Using CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS is necessary on systems where the C++11-enabled libstdc++ is installed not in the default location. For example, the CentOS buildbot uses:

Nice! This looks good to me but probably Chris or someone else should sign off on it. There were two minor warnings on Darwin: -- In file included from /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regexec.c:81: /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc: In function 'sbackref': /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc:665: warning: control reaches end of

When building LLVM (trunk) on macOS (where there is no /usr/include/), the resulting Clang works fine for me when I add an appropriate -isysroot /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk to the command line when invoking Clang. (I'm not sure I'm using it as intended, but that appears to work reasonably well for me.) However, when

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit > test > > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is > mainly > > a

This library is intended to be used locally for tests and not installed as a global system library. And even if it were, the install doesn't belong to LLVM but to a dedicated gtest package. --- utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt b/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt index fd1a048..c11c110 100644 ---

Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a different test suite? I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone makes a patch for it? Regards Mark Kromis On Dec 27, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Keir Mierle wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha

Hello, GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible issues in LLVM. In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10: /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In instantiation of

On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly > a trial balloon and proof of concept. I think this is a great idea! As Keir already noted, I would also agree with LLVM

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > So are you planning on maintaining whatever test system, or just have them > as a pre-requisite. For example are you going to have the gtest > incorporated, or have them install it separately first? I was under the > impression that the user would have to install gtest first. > The current plan is to check in the unittest

(Forwarding this to llvm-dev) This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly a trial balloon and proof of concept. Some notes about the patch: 1) For the testing framework, I went with Google Test, since it's the one I have the most experience with. I fully expect an extended

On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a > different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar > with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it > just that someone makes a patch for

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or > a different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. > So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone > makes a patch for it? > I looked more into Boost.Test to see what's in

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:09 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. > > Could you provide an example here of the motivation for the feature you're > missing? Might help motivate the discussion (and/or we'll end up nitpicking > how it could be done differently without that feature... - which

Thanks. The motivating example can be seen in this review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44382. In that review, I am unit testing .debug_line parsing, specifically, the behaviour when the parser is fed a malformed section. Most of the code under test goes through some slight variations in the code path, depending on a) the DWARF version (interesting cases are 3, 4 and 5), and b) whether the DWARF is