[LLVMdev] llvm/clang test failures on powerpc-darwin8
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:
>> 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:
>> 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
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
(I'm fangism in IRC.)
More information about the llvm-dev