similar to: 3-stage bootstrap build bots?

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> FYI, I just successfully performed a 3-stage bootstrap with >> stage2/stage3 object file comparison on x86_64-apple-darwin16 for >>

FYI, I just successfully performed a 3-stage bootstrap with stage2/stage3 object file comparison on x86_64-apple-darwin16 for llvm/clang/clang-tools-extra/compiler-rt/libcxx/openmp/polly using our custom fink packaging scripts with the -DLLVM_REVERSE_ITERATION:BOOL=ON cmake option. There were no stage2/stage3 object file comparison failures or test suite regressions. I do have one question

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote: > >> On 10/29/13 07:01 AM, Richard Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux), >>> and it works for me (tm). This

Hi This question is far less simple than the title suggests, please read carefully, thanks. I have 2 sets of data, both read into R >data1<-read.table ("1.txt", header=T, sep="\t") >data2<-read.table ("2.txt", header=T, sep="\t") >data1 Taxon stage1 stage2 stage3 stage4 T1 0 0 1 1 T2 0

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > The third stage is for comparing the output of clang (as compiled by > gcc) against clang (as compiled by clang). The whole process is: > > Stage 1: build clang with gcc > > Stage 2: build clang with the clang created by gcc > > Stage 3: build clang with the clang created by clang. > >

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote: > On 10/29/13 07:01 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > >> >> [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux), >> and it works for me (tm). This is with libstdc++ providing the ABI pieces, >> rather than libc++abi or libcxxrt, though.] >> > libc++

Dear all, I would like to multiply two matrixes with the different dimension column by column. Let make an example: If I have two matrixes "X" and "Y"as follow: X<- matrix(1:12, nrow=4, ncol=3, dimnames=list(c("A","B","C","D"), c("stage1","stage2","stage3"))) Y<- matrix(1:28, nrow=4, ncol=7,

I've been experimenting with profiled bootstraps using sample profiles. Initially, I made stage2 build stage3 while running under Perf. This produced a 20Gb profile which took too long to convert to LLVM, and used ~30Gb of RAM. So, I decided that this was not going to be very useful for general usage. I then changed the bootstrap to instead run each individual compile under Perf. This

On 10/29/13 07:01 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > > [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux), > and it works for me (tm). This is with libstdc++ providing the ABI > pieces, rather than libc++abi or libcxxrt, though.] libc++ "works" for us as well, but it can't self host. I don't know if your "works" and my definition of works is

The saga continues. I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs (Are the above two ok?) The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in the

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can you extract the relevant part of the heap profile data? How large is > the sample profile data fed to the compiler? > > The indexed format profile size for clang is <100MB. The InstrProfRecord > for each function is read, used and discarded one at a time, so there

Without seeing more details it's impossible to tell, but it might have been me. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6102310d814ad73eab60a88b21dd70874f7a056f#diff-0f9a49c4e31c311a0010e126cd785f08 changed PHI node equality check, but there were some users that implicitly depended on the old definition of the PHI equality, and didn't verify their implicit assumptions with reality,

Since we are only a week away from branching for 3.7.0, this new breakage in the stage2 bootstrap of llvm/clang/compiler-rt/clang-tools-extra should get triaged. At r241513, a three stage bootstrap with comparision of stage2/stage3 files completed fine. However at r241594 we now have the new regression reported in https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24054... Assertion failed: (Val &&

Focusing on one comment: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Brooks Davis <brooks at freebsd.org> wrote: > Today you could probably pick a somewhat newer > Clang than 3.1 without much real impact on us, but it would hurt to have > the requirements change with every release. From our perspective it's > much better to change no more than every two years or so. > I think

On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David Greene wrote: > The saga continues. > > I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with > the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 > of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: > > > warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs > warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs > >

On 30 August 2017 at 18:51, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:45 AM Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I wanted to share a couple of updates on the effort to uncover >> non-determinism in LLVM through reverse iteration. >>

Dear r-users! I would like to cross two data frame which have the same row number but different in the number of column. Can anybody help me for this case ? Thanks a lot in advance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Majid Iravani PhD Student Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Research Group of Vegetation Ecology Z?rcherstrasse 111

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Zolotukhin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Recently I committed a change (r330175) that passed all my testing, but >> failed on several bots. Namely, these are the failed ones:

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:31:10PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > One thing I want to call out: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > I suppose what I'm saying is that we are currently not using *any*

Thanks everyone! What are the best tools/techniques to expose such non-deterministic behavior? My hope is to reproduce it on a smaller test (e.g. use some sanitizer and thus make the compiler *fail* when building the test) - Currently these failures only tell me “there is some bug in your code” without any hints where to look for it. Michael > On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Steven Wu