[cfe-commits] Update Cortex-A9 buildslaves

[David Tweed]

Hi Stepan,

Thanks for the info.

However, there are two problems problem that's affecting the regression tests (which don't, for the most part,
actually run any code):

1. clang looks for gcc installation directories based upon the triple-name, which was changed on ubuntu recently.

2. the appearance of function call convention markers on individual
functions signatures in the llvm assembly output. Since FileCheck is using regexps for function
signature matching, these cause things to fail.

I'm aware that the ARM buildbots in the llvm lab have, after the configuration change, still generating new errors (in addition to some mysterious failures to compile at all in some cases). I've had a look and they all appear to be due to 2 -- ie, function call convention markers -- that I don't see appearing on my pandaboard test setup, and hence the tests pass for me. I'm trying to see what the configuration differences could be to cause that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stepan Dyatkovskiy [mailto:stpworld at narod.ru] 
Sent: 28 September 2012 09:59
To: David Tweed
Cc: 'Galina Kistanova'; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; 'llvm cfe'; "'陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen)'"; Amara Emerson
Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] Update Cortex-A9 buildslaves

Hi David. Perhaps it will usefull for you.
Currently clang (and llc) generates improper code for byval params, when 
gnueabi is turned on. I'm working on fixing that.
-Stepan.
David Tweed wrote:
> OK, some investigation results from the always invigorating world of ABI
> configuration issues:
>
> If you are producing an armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf target then you NEED
> TO DEFINITELY NOT USE --abi=aapcs to avoid some FileCheck problems.
> However, if you are producing an armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi target then
> you NEED --abi=aapcs to avoid some problems.
>
> On a recent/future ubuntu ARM based system, it's correct to specify
> armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf and so we should use that and drop the
> --abi=aapcs entry. (It's still an open question whether in other
> circumstances plain gnueabi remains an interesting target that ought to be
> tested, but on stock ubuntu gnueabihf is the way to go.) If I do that on my
> pandaboard I both get rid of some of the existing failures and I don't
> create any new ones. I've also tested clang and it produces runnable
> executables. So I think this change is what ought to be there.
>
> Could I ask you to try that configuration options on your buildslaves and
> see if that reproduces what I see? Once it's clear this is ok I'll try to do
> a formal patch to the ARM installation notes in LLVM.
>
> (I don't think aapcs causes "real-life" problems, it just changes function
> signatures which FileCheck regexps doesn't understand.)
>
> Many thanks, and sorry for the confusion.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Tweed [mailto:david.tweed at arm.com]
> Sent: 27 September 2012 11:21
> To: David Tweed; 'Galina Kistanova'; 'llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu'; 'llvm cfe'
> Cc: Amara Emerson; Kristof Beyls
> Subject: RE: [cfe-commits] Update Cortex-A9 buildslaves
>
> Right, the situation is more complex than I thought. Using the same triple
> as the ubuntu gcc was compiled with fixes (in the "right" way) some of the
> regression test failures. However, a just completed run of the full
> regression tests has shown it causes about 50 new failures within clang. I
> need to look at these to see why this change has occurred, but I think it's
> probably best not to change the triple just yet.
>
> In general, while the interaction between the clang driver search mechanism
> and the pre-existing gcc installation is, I suspect, always going to be
> complex and ad-hoc, at the moment there's no integrated gives no feedback
> about how all these checks have influenced the paths it knows about, etc.
> I'm not sure if this is something worth trying to address.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Tweed [mailto:david.tweed at arm.com]
> Sent: 27 September 2012 10:03
> To: 'Galina Kistanova'; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm cfe
> Cc: Amara Emerson; Kristof Beyls
> Subject: RE: [cfe-commits] Update Cortex-A9 buildslaves
>
> Hi, I haven't quite completed my internal testing yet, but since you're
> making modifications to the buildbots:
>
> according to
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/3118/ste
> ps/configure/logs/stdio
>
> you're configuring with armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi. Could you change that
> to armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf please? I've been digging into some clang
> failures and I think that this configuration used to match the debian/ubuntu
> gcc configuration, then at some point debian/ubuntu changed their
> configuration, especially for gcc. clang particularly depends on extracting
> info from the gcc configuration, and with a mismatched triple it thinks
> there's not a working gcc installation so stops lots of stuff early.
>
> Tests are still running, but I think it solves some clang issues and doesn't
> introduce any new ones.
>
> Let me know if any of this is unclear
>
> Cheers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
> [mailto:cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Galina Kistanova
> Sent: 26 September 2012 19:36
> To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm cfe
> Subject: [cfe-commits] Update Cortex-A9 buildslaves
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> We have updated both Cortex-A9 buildslaves to reduce the number of
> failing tests.
> Currently both Pandaboards run Ubuntu 12.10 and the following
> development toolchain:
>
> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-1ubuntu1) 4.7.2
> g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-1ubuntu1) 4.7.2
> GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22.90.20120919
> Python 2.7.3
>
> Please note that the current expected number of failing tests on this
> builder is 17.
> We are working on fixing them, and as always, patches are welcome.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Galina
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>