similar to: JIT tests on AArch64

Just a quick note to say that I saw this. I'm tracking down what looks like another issue which may be undefined behavior within a PassManager test. That's more critical for us at the moment so I'm going to diagnose and send a report about that before getting back to the JIT tests. In the meantime, if Lang knows anything, that would be helpful. -David

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 ::

Hi, I just tagged 3.9.1-rc2, so testing can begin. There was a bug found in -rc1 before I could send out a release announcement, so I decided to merge the fix and tag -rc2 to save some testing cycles. We can always use more testers, so if you are interested in helping, let me know. Thanks, Tom

On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:26, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 27 Jul 2017, at 00:41, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. >>> >>> Please build, test and upload binaries

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 27 Jul 2017, at 00:41, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. >> >> Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if >> there are any issues. > > Built and tested rc1. Test failures on

Dear testers, 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if there are any issues. I'll upload sources, docs, and your binaries to the pre-release website once they're ready. Thanks, Hans

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

On 18 May 2013 09:56, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > According to Amara that assertion was a bit of paranoia so we'd know > if someone tried emitting .rel relocations and sending the result > through MCJIT. However, now we routinely re-relocate using explicit > addends so as he says it can probably just be removed. > Hi Tim, Sorry, I saw that thread

Hi Lang, thanks for announcing. Would be great if you could send another short notice as soon as the actual patch exists. Best, Stefan Am 24.05.16 um 23:06 schrieb Lang Hames via llvm-dev: > Hi All, > > I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and > to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may > affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely

Hi, The 6.0.1-rc2 release has been tagged. Testers may begin testing and reporting results. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 6.0.1-rc1 release. Testers may begin testing and uploading binaries. Also, any tester who has not tested 5.0.2-rc1 and would like to do so please try to do this before Friday, because I would like to tag 5.0.2-final then. As a reminder to users and developers, May 18 is the deadline for submitting merge requests for 6.0.1, so there is still time to get bug fixes

So, it seems David beat me to it, and the assert has already been removed, but the failures are still inconsistent. A9-check-all, compiled with GCC: Tests XPASS: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-common-symbols-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine__MCJIT__test-ptr-reloc-remote.ll Unit-tests pass. A9-self-host, compiled with

On 2013-03-12 1:28 AM, "Jyotsna Verma" <jverma at codeaurora.org> wrote: >Thanks Dan! > >The ArchSupportMCJIT() functions in >unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/MCJITTestBase.h uses "Host Triple" to >check >for compatibility. Since we cross-compile on X86, "Host Triple" for us >will >be "X86" which is a supported architecture. I

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in >> a better state now. >> >> 6.0.0-rc2 was just tagged, after r324506. >> >>

Thanks Dan! The ArchSupportMCJIT() functions in unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/MCJITTestBase.h uses "Host Triple" to check for compatibility. Since we cross-compile on X86, "Host Triple" for us will be "X86" which is a supported architecture. I tried removing it from the supported arch list but didn't see any effect. I was just wondering if these tests are

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 10:20, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in

>Since MCJIT works on x86, please don't remove it from the supported >platforms list. One downside of using the macro trick is that the test names >are still printed even when they are disabled. It sounds like you need to >modify the macro to also check for the target triple as well... This was just a temporary change to see how it works. >There isn't anything in MCJIT as

Hi Andy/Albert, Sorry for the slow reply, my day job caught up with me. Two bits of progress. (a) MCJIT is working nicely for non-trivial examples in Extempore on x86 and ARM, and (b) the page permissions are now RO again. For your amusement a *very* cheesy video of Extempore running on-the-fly with MCJIT on an ARM Pandaboard. Viewer discretion is advised! https://vimeo.com/60407237 Here is the

Hey Andy, Yep I've tested some non-trivial examples with loads of dependencies, both code and data, global, local and external symbol resolution etc.. Actually this was truly a piece of cake, nothing to do, the memory manager is working really nicely so far as I can tell. Relocations to sections are all working as expected (aside from previously mentioned ARM issue which is probably just

Hi, Have anybody recently built LLVM in Debug mode /within/ space requirements from the Getting Started doc? https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#hardware > An LLVM-only build will need about 1-3 GB of space. A full build of LLVM and Clang will need around 15-20 GB of disk space. From my experience this numbers looks drastically low. On FreeBSD my recent builds consumed more than