[LLVMdev] Test Suite - Livermore Loops

Michael Gottesman mgottesman at apple.com
Mon Jan 7 07:32:36 PST 2013

We are testing LTO internally and have not run into this issue IIRC. But on the other hand, we are doing a straight compilation (I.e. not doing it in parts as you said you were). Even so, you are right, we should have public lnt LTO testers.

On Jan 7, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:

> On 7 January 2013 14:37, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>> sorry, what change do you plan to make?  Did you work out what the bug is?  My
>> basic worry is that it sounds like you are trying to hide the underlying issue
>> rather than fixing it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Hi Duncan,
> There are two issues:
> 1. The LTO bug we found by running Livermore Loops on test-suite. I'm still trying to isolate this and will report as soon as I get a smaller test case. (I sent a tarball earlier to the list on how to reproduce it). Bugs like these will not be caught any more with the standard LNT tests, true, but there's also point 2 below...ping 
> 2. Buildbots with multiple test builders, confusing and generating too much noise. LNT is not testing LTO at the moment, but David said there someone working on it right now. So, the way to go would be to have LNT on all buildbots (in the long run) testing with and without LTO (and possibly other variations), so we can have. a coherent story and an easy way to reproduce errors locally.
>> To test you need to set up your own build master.  It's not that hard.
> That's a good point. I'll do that.
> cheers,
> --renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130107/b63d452f/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list