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

[Jack Howarth]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:51:57AM -0500, David Fang wrote:
> Hi,
> 	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:
> http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/llvm-clang-release-3.0-powerpc-darwin8-g++-4.0.1-fink-build-log.txt
> (append .bz2 to URL for compressed version)
> fink info file (for darwin8 only):  
> http://fink.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fink/experimental/fangism/finkinfo/llvm30.info?view=log
> 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:  
> http://paste.lisp.org/display/126363
> (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.

David,
   Another alternative for darwin8 would be to bootstrap llvm/clang 3.0 using
the clang from the fink llvm29 package (since clang 2.9 should build fine against
gcc-4.0.1).
            Jack

>
> 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.
>
> Fang
> (I'm fangism in IRC.)
>
> -- 
> David Fang
> http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/

> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev