Re: r347720 - [RISCV] Mark unit tests as "requires: riscv-registered-target"

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

Hi Alex,

Sorry, I missed this thread. I guess I was too quick to commit my patch. 
The actual problem seems to be something else due to which 
riscv32-toolchain.c fails on Windows. The fact that upstream bots seem 
to be fine could point to a bug in our internal code. Basically it is 
not able to find riscv32-unknown-elf-ld and ends up invoking ld.exe. I 
will look into this in more detail. Meanwhile I have reverted this patch 
in r348402.


--Mandeep

On 12/5/2018 12:28 AM, Alex Bradbury wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 09:44, Alex Bradbury  wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 22:56, Mandeep Singh Grang via cfe-commits
 wrote:

Author: mgrang
Date: Tue Nov 27 14:53:57 2018
New Revision: 347720

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=347720&view=rev
Log:
[RISCV] Mark unit tests as "requires: riscv-registered-target"

Some of these tests break if the RISCV backend has not been built.

Reland D54816.

Modified:
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv-abi.c
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv-arch.c
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv-features.c
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv-gnutools.c
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv32-toolchain.c
 cfe/trunk/test/Driver/riscv64-toolchain.c

Hi Mandeep,

Maybe I'm missing something obvious but I'm a bit confused - what in
these tests requires that lib/Target/RISCV was built?

These tests obviously don't fail on the standard builders for instance.

Hi Mandeep, any thoughts on the question above?

Thanks,

Alex


___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Patch review please: D48862

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

Gentle reminder to the reviewers to please review my patch: 
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48862 [Fix lib paths for OpenEmbedded targets].
I wasn't sure who to add as reviewer for OpenEmbedded targets. So 
apologies if you are not the correct person to review this.

Please feel free to add the correct reviewers.

-Mandeep

___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: r333978 - Reimplement the bittest intrinsic family as builtins with inline asm

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

@rnk I tried building spec2000/eon for Windows ARM64 and ran into these 
errors:


use of undeclared identifier '_interlockedbittestandset_acq'
use of undeclared identifier '_interlockedbittestandset_rel'
use of undeclared identifier '_interlockedbittestandset_nf'

I see that you have removed them in your patch. Apparently they are 
needed (at least for ARM64 Win).


--Mandeep

On 6/5/2018 11:01 AM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:33 AM Martin Storsjö > wrote:


> // Many of MSVC builtins are on both x64 and ARM; to avoid
repeating code, we
> // handle them here.

This doesn't seem thought through wrt non-x86 architectures. I'm
not sure
if there's any similar suitable instruction to use on ARM/AArch64,
but we
should at the very least fall back to doing whatever we did before
this
change for anything not x86.


 I'll go back and take a look, but I'm not convinced that what we did 
before was correct for ARM either. I'm installing the Visual C++ 
aarch64 compiler now so I can make sure we get it right.



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits


___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D40073: [Analyzer] Non-determinism: don't sort indirect goto LabelDecl's by addresses

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

We have a buildbot setup to uncover such cases of non-determinism: 
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/reverse-iteration


The idea is to iterate unordered containers in reverse to weed out 
pointer ordering issues.


Another instance of non-determinism is relative ordering of elements 
with the same key: 
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118639.html


Feel free to reach out to me to discuss more on this :)

--Mandeep


On 11/21/2017 6:30 PM, Devin Coughlin via Phabricator via cfe-commits wrote:

dcoughlin added a comment.

For clang itself I think we also use a stage-2 clang to build the same version 
of clang and make sure that it matches the stage-2 clang. This doesn't help for 
the analyzer though.


Repository:
   rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D40073



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits


___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D36386: [clang] Remove unit test which uses reverse-iterate and fix a PointerLikeTypeTrait specialization

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

> Ah, OK. I'm still curious about whether this results in a loss of 
test coverage. Without this test, would the bug it was testing still be 
caught by some test failure in at least one of the forward or reverse 
iteration modes?


Sorry ... I missed that. Yes, the reverse iteration buildbot 
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/reverse-iteration would test these. 
These tests were a stopgap solution anyway while the reverse builtbot 
was being setup.



> I'll just do that (r310506 & r310508) - done! :)
Thanks!


--Mandeep


On 8/9/2017 11:35 AM, David Blaikie wrote:



On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:44 AM Grang, Mandeep Singh 
mailto:mgr...@codeaurora.org>> wrote:


In D35043 I have removed the llvm tests which use
-reverse-iterate. This patch removes the clang tests.


Ah, OK. I'm still curious about whether this results in a loss of test 
coverage. Without this test, would the bug it was testing still be 
caught by some test failure in at least one of the forward or reverse 
iteration modes?


Should I post a later patch to change all "class
PointerLikeTypeTraits" to "struct PointerLikeTypeTraits"?


I'll just do that (r310506 & r310508) - done! :)



On 8/7/2017 2:50 PM, David Blaikie wrote:



On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:08 PM Mandeep Singh Grang via
Phabricator mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:

mgrang added a comment.

This patch does 3 things:

1. Get rid of the unit test
objc-modern-metadata-visibility2.mm
 because this
test check uses flag -reverse-iterate. This flag will be
removed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043.


Sure - please commit that separately (probably once D35043 is
approved - probably best to include that removal in D35043, or a
separate patch that /only/ removes the -reverse-iterate flag (&
any tests that use it) as a standalone change?).

Does this test need a replacement? If this test is removed and
the underlying issue it was testing regresses, will one of the
buildbots (reverse or normal) catch the problem?

2. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043 gets rid of the empty base
definition for PointerLikeTypeTraits. This results in a
compiler warning because PointerLikeTypeTrait has been
defined as struct here while in the header it is a class. So
I have changed struct to class.


I'd probably go the other way - traits classes like this make
more sense as structs, I think - it only has public members & no
implementation really has any need for supporting private members.

3. Since I changed struct PointerLikeTypeTrait to class
PointerLikeTypeTrait here, the member functions are no longer
public now. This results in a compiler error. So I explicitly
marked them as public here.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D36386







___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D36386: [clang] Remove unit test which uses reverse-iterate and fix a PointerLikeTypeTrait specialization

[Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-commits]

In D35043 I have removed the llvm tests which use -reverse-iterate. This 
patch removes the clang tests.


Should I post a later patch to change all "class PointerLikeTypeTraits" 
to "struct PointerLikeTypeTraits"?


On 8/7/2017 2:50 PM, David Blaikie wrote:



On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:08 PM Mandeep Singh Grang via Phabricator 
mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:


mgrang added a comment.

This patch does 3 things:

1. Get rid of the unit test objc-modern-metadata-visibility2.mm
 because this test
check uses flag -reverse-iterate. This flag will be removed in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043.


Sure - please commit that separately (probably once D35043 is approved 
- probably best to include that removal in D35043, or a separate patch 
that /only/ removes the -reverse-iterate flag (& any tests that use 
it) as a standalone change?).


Does this test need a replacement? If this test is removed and the 
underlying issue it was testing regresses, will one of the buildbots 
(reverse or normal) catch the problem?


2. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043 gets rid of the empty base
definition for PointerLikeTypeTraits. This results in a compiler
warning because PointerLikeTypeTrait has been defined as struct
here while in the header it is a class. So I have changed struct
to class.


I'd probably go the other way - traits classes like this make more 
sense as structs, I think - it only has public members & no 
implementation really has any need for supporting private members.


3. Since I changed struct PointerLikeTypeTrait to class
PointerLikeTypeTrait here, the member functions are no longer
public now. This results in a compiler error. So I explicitly
marked them as public here.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D36386





___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits