[cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

[Daniel Sanders via cfe-dev]

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

Hi Hans,

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
soon, though.

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.

Cheers,
Hans
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev