similar to: [LLVMdev] Test failure

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org >> >**wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >>> >>> For example

On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >> >> For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is >> x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. >> >> I was thinking

Good evening, guys! At first, I apologize my report is a little gross, I have so little time to do checking process minutely. * RC1 RC1 can be built on VS8, 9, 10 with Debug|Release. At one point, r127264(in release_29/trunk) is needed to build with Debug on VS10. RC1 can pass clang-test with any configurations. RC1 fails llvm's check on many tests. * RC1 and patches ToT would be ready

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64 > > Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1. Is there any way > to tell whether these are regressions vs new-to-3.8.0-but-failing? The > MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++ errors were > not

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> In lld, we have places that used nested a

On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work around. Do you have

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and > I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work > around. Do you have suggestions on how to code the following simple > examples to not error? Can some of these be

They are good. I am checking with Release now. 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m I will investigate it later. ...Takumi vs8 20>Failing Tests (3): 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m 20> LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll 20> LLVM-Unit :: support/debug/SupportTests.exe/CastingTest.cast 20> Expected Passes : 8106 20> Expected Failures : 73

Hi Michael, Rafael, Pawel, Apologies for the delayed reply - I was out on vacation last week. > In fact I would actually support outright > replacing ErrorOr with this if it can be done safely, as I find the > name TypedErrorOr a bit long. I find the name awkward too. I'll leave these classes as TypedError and TypedErrorOr<T> when I submit the initial patch to llvm-commits,

Michael, In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work around. Do you have suggestions on how to code the following simple examples to not error? Can some of these be fixed in ErrorOr.h? Or am I totally not getting something? -Nick struct Foo { void doit(); };

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 May 2013 09:01, Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "s390x--linux-gnu" seems wrong: either there's a dash too many or a >> word too few. > > > Nope, this triple is correct. The canonicalization of the triple (actually a > quadruple)

2017-05-29 9:25 GMT-07:00 Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 2017-05-26 17:47 GMT-07:00 Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >> >>> Changing a header file somewhere and having to spend 10 minutes waiting

> I like this idea in general. It's a better implementation of what > ErrorOr originally was before we removed the custom error support > because it wasn't used. In fact I would actually support outright > replacing ErrorOr with this if it can be done safely, as I find the > name TypedErrorOr a bit long. The main differences are * This will hopefully be used. *

I think I removed all uses of ErrorOr<void>. Can you try updating? On 15 November 2013 12:09, Daniel Albuschat <d.albuschat at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey there, > > lld fails to build on Visual Studio 2013 because of ErrorOr<void>. > For example, ErrorOr<void> is used in InputGraph.h as the return type > of InputGraph::reset. > Inside of ErrorOr, there is:

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 Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:25 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 2017-05-26 17:47 GMT-07:00 Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >> >>> Changing a header file somewhere and having to

Hey there, lld fails to build on Visual Studio 2013 because of ErrorOr<void>. For example, ErrorOr<void> is used in InputGraph.h as the return type of InputGraph::reset. Inside of ErrorOr, there is: typedef typename remove_reference<T>::type &reference As T is void, and remove_reference <T>::type results in void, the typedef expands to: typedef void & reference,

I'm currently using MSVC 2012, but I saw that Alp Toker landed a patch to LLD to make it compile with MSVC 2013, so I believe it's doable. Update and try again. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > I think I removed all uses of ErrorOr<void>. Can you try updating? > > On 15 November 2013 12:09, Daniel Albuschat

Hi, I am trying to build the LLVM suite on a RedHat Enterprise Linux clone (Scientific Linux <https://www.scientificlinux.org/>). In the latest attempt, the build seems to complete without any explicit failures but the `check-all` process fails. Any ideas about what is wrong or suggestions for how to proceed would be much appreciated. This is the current procedure: sudo yum install

Hi, For a couple of days now, one of the tests fails: FAIL: LLVM :: MC/R600/sopp.s (16225 of 19902) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: MC/R600/sopp.s' FAILED ******************** Script: -- /home/csabaraduly/workspace/LLVM/build/Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -arch=r600 -mcpu=SI -show-encoding /home/csabaraduly/workspace/LLVM/llvm/test/MC/R600/sopp.s |