[llvm-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 is here

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Rainer Orth via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> > It took a bit longer than planned due to master being a somewhat
> > unstable at the branch point, but Release Candidate 1 has now been
> > tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1.
> >
> > Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc1
> >
> > Pre-built binaries will be added there as they become available.
>
> I've already uploaded Solaris 11.4/AMD64 and Solaris 11.4/SPARCv9
> binaries to releases-origin.llvm.org some time ago.

Sorry, I missed this. Did you send an email when you uploaded? Can you
please share the SHA1 or similar hashes so I can verify that I get the
right ones on my end?

> While amd64-pc-solaris2.11 results are en par with the LLVM 9.0.0 ones
> (some failures fixed or xfailed since then)
>
>   Expected Passes    : 54488
>   Expected Failures  : 180
>   Unsupported Tests  : 2409
>   Unexpected Failures: 23
>
> the sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11 ones are horrible compared to the 9.0.0 ones:
>
> * 9.0.0 final:
>
>   Expected Passes    : 48477
>   Expected Failures  : 180
>   Unsupported Tests  : 1443
>   Unexpected Passes  : 1
>   Unexpected Failures: 382
>
> * 10.0.0 rc1:
>
>   Expected Passes    : 47959
>   Expected Failures  : 186
>   Unsupported Tests  : 1615
>   Unexpected Passes  : 1
>   Unexpected Failures: 4278
>
> A large number of those only occur for non-SPARC targets (something I
> usually don't test at all), and even the buildbot is way way better with
> only 51 unexpected failures.  However, that one only does a 1-stage
> build where errors due to Bug 42535 don't occur.  Still, comparing
> master results on Solaris 11.5/SPARC for all targets between a 1-stage
> build with gcc 9.1.0 and a 2-stage build shows a similar pattern:
>
> * 1-stage:
>
>   Expected Passes    : 53734
>   Expected Failures  : 205
>   Unsupported Tests  : 2495
>   Unexpected Passes  : 1
>   Unexpected Failures: 228
>
> * 2-stage:
>
>   Expected Passes    : 45756
>   Expected Failures  : 205
>   Unsupported Tests  : 2495
>   Unexpected Passes  : 2
>   Unexpected Failures: 7303
>
> I fear this is effectively impossible to analyze let alone fix for the
> 10.0.0 release.

Thanks for the report!

I guess since this doesn't seem to be well covered by continuous
testing, it's not going to be good :-/

Should we highlight the status of Solaris/Sparc support in the release
notes somehow?

Thanks,
Hans