I've changed the lit arguments to '-v' on my old 3.7.1 build and re-run check-all. I can confirm that these failures aren't regressions since LLVM 3.7.1 did not actually run any libc++ tests. Looking through the generated makefiles it seems that check-libcxx wasn't part of check-all. ________________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: 19 February 2016 14:33 To: Hans Wennborg; llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); release-test...@lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun Subject: RE: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status
Hi Hans, I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine. One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old build and I get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into the 3.7.1 build to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I currently get. ________________________________________ From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev [lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org] Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22 To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); release-test...@lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty soon, though. This is what's blocking us: - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop() I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert r255691 on the branch - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332 But no comments yet.. Hal? - PR26564: Performance regression in AA Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/ - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349 It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon. - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294 Looks like it's moving along. - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ... I believe Matthias is working on it? Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise. - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin Is no one looking? :-( If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to prioritize them if you can. Also, please let me know if my list is missing something. Cheers, Hans _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
