[LLVMdev] llvm/clang test failures on powerpc-darwin8

David Fang fang at csl.cornell.edu
Thu Dec 15 22:51:57 PST 2011

 	Thanks for the quick reply again.

> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and
>> have the following test results to share.
>> Summary below, full log at:
>> http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt
>> The only edits required were those I posted to llvm-commits yesterday (re:
>> "some missing clang libs").  And I also edited LitConfig.py to point to
>> /sw/bin/bash (4.2) because /bin/bash is missing support for pipefail.
>> Some of the tests hung indefinitely on 'lli', so I had to kill them.
>> My question is: which of the following test failures should be addressed first
>> as top priority?  Are there any low-hanging fruit that look easy to fix
>> (looking at the full log)?
> All the tests that say "No available targets" are incorrectly
> configured; they assume the x86 backend is available.  They can be
> "fixed" easily, but that won't really get you closer to a usable
> compiler.

I think these can be ignored for the time being...

> I would guess that all the PCH tests are crashing for the same reason,
> so fixing that could fix a lot of failures at once on the clang side.

> If you're interested in actually having a usable compiler for your
> system, I would say the crashes in CodeGen/Generic and CodeGen/PowerPC
> are the highest priority.

Indeed I am interested.  :)

Here's another interesting data point.
My full build/test log of release-3.0, bootstrapping with 
powerpc-darwin8-g++-4.0.1 is here:
(append .bz2 to URL for compressed version)
fink info file (for darwin8 only): 
at revision 1.9.  (also patch file needed from the same dir.)

These results have far fewer failures than svn-trunk, and are also 
comparable to bootstrapping with gcc-4.6.2, summarized here: 
(Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole build/test log for the gcc46 bootstrap.)
This consistency between different bootstraps of the release gives me some 
hope that g++-4.0.1 is yet usable.

I don't know how far diverged trunk is from the 3.0-branch, but there are 
far fewer CodeGen test failures than with svn-trunk.  Both trunk and 
branch exhibit numerous PCH failures.  Does this suggest some code-gen 
regression on the trunk that others could hunt for?

In the full bootstrap log, I see numerous compiler warnings.  Could any of 
them be related to potential PCH errors?  For example, I see:
tools/clang/include/clang/Serialization/ASTBitCodes.h:100: warning: passing negative 
value '-0x00000000000000001' for argument 1 to 'clang::serialization::TypeIdx::TypeIdx(uint32_t)'
Is the Serialization code involved PCH reading/writing?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.  I know I'm just getting my feet wet 
with llvm/clang.

(I'm fangism in IRC.)

David Fang

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list