[Release-testers] [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status
Daniel Sanders via Release-testers
release-testers at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 19 09:41:54 PST 2016
I've changed the lit arguments to '-v' on my old 3.7.1 build and re-run check-all. I can confirm that these failures aren't regressions since LLVM 3.7.1 did not actually run any libc++ tests. Looking through the generated makefiles it seems that check-libcxx wasn't part of check-all.
From: Daniel Sanders
Sent: 19 February 2016 14:33
To: Hans Wennborg; llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); release-testers at lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: RE: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status
I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine.
One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old build and I get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into the 3.7.1 build to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I currently get.
From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev [lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org]
Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22
To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); release-testers at lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status
According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
This is what's blocking us:
- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch
- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
But no comments yet.. Hal?
- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
Looks like it's moving along.
- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
I believe Matthias is working on it?
Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
Is no one looking? :-(
If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.
Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the Release-testers