[LLVMdev] [compiler-rt] lit tests without x86

[Alexey Samsonov]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:

> > What is the exact line you use to configure build tree, and the output
> you see?
>
> cmake ../.. \
>     -G Ninja \
>     -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=ship \
>     -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \
>     -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \
>     -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \
>     -DLLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \
>     -DLLVM_TARGET_ARCH=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \
>     -DLLVM_LIT_ARGS=-v
>
> ninja check-all
>
>
> Lot's of different errors, but this one stands out (from 'check-tsan'):
>
>    cannot find "bin/../lib/clang/3.4/lib/linux/libclang_rt.tsan-arm.a"
>
> No surprise that library is missing - the ARM Linux runtime doesn't
> have enough information to build.  We haven't provided compiler-rt
> with an ARM linker (or a sysroot).  I only know how to do that for the
> Android build.  How do I build for ARM Linux?
>

TSan is not supported on ARM at all, so we should avoid running any tests
there.
Do I understand correctly that you build Clang that targets ARM on an X86
host?
If yes, then we should modify compiler-rt CMake rules to check if
just-built Clang can target
the host system and avoid running any sanitizer tests otherwise.


>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, I think we should disable sanitizer tests on these platforms. What
> is
> > the exact line you use to configure build tree, and the output you see?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Are there any sanitizer lit tests in non-X86 configurations?  For
> example:
> >>
> >> $ cmake -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \
> >>    -DLLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi   \
> >>    -DLLVM_TARGET_ARCH=arm-none-linux-gnueabi
> >>
> >> All ASan tests were removed from the build and all the other
> >> sanitizers have tests but they all fail.  Should they all be disabled
> >> too?  Or can we add a REQUIRES tag to get lit to mark them as
> >> 'unsupported'?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Greg
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Samsonov, MSK
>



-- 
Alexey Samsonov, MSK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131029/5fd11b15/attachment.html>