[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] 2.7 Pre-release1 available for testing

Tanya Lattner lattner at apple.com
Mon Apr 5 13:33:44 PDT 2010

On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Török Edwin wrote:

> On 03/30/2010 09:21 PM, Török Edwin wrote:
>> On 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>>> Thanks for testing the release!
>>>> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3,
>>>> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself,
>>>> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc.
>>>> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs 2.6
>>>> compared to my results from Aug 31 2009, ignoring CBE failures:
>>>> new JIT failures:
>>>> MultiSource/Applications/spiff/spiff
>>>> SingleSource/Regression/C/2004-03-15-IndirectGoto
>>> Yes, I'm seeing the second regression on darwin too. Please file a bug for the other one if you havent already.
>> I haven't, will do tomorrow.
> Sorry for taking so long, I opened a PR for spiff, but its not a
> regression, see PR6785.
> To sum up: all tests (including native) run out of memory, llvm 2.6 had
> this problem too, but it didn't miscompare (it was all Out of memory).
> Now in 2.7 the JIT crashes when running out of memory.

If thats the case, then not a release blocker.

> P.S.: looking at the current 2.7 release blockers I only see PR6696 as
> relevant, the others are warnings, experimental code, and a fortran failure.
> Is that the case, or are the others release blockers too?

- warnings are release blockers. 
- fortran build failure may end up not being a release blocker. This is under discussion since we had originally added compiling llvm-gcc w/ fortran support as part of the criteria, but its not being tested at all on darwin (which is a huge problem and I dont think we should only be testing it right before a release).

All the bugs have been updated with additional information. I will remove them if its determined to not be a release blocker (ie. PR6778), but for now.. they all are.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list