Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
[earlier I had accidentally sent this message to only Hans, re-sending as reply-all now] When I tried rc1 on sles11.3 x86_64, msan's getrlimit test fails to build for lack of prlimit(). SLES11.3 has glibc 2.11.3. Is there a minimum required glibc? I think this test implementation previously used getrlimit(), which is present on glibc2.11.3. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers < release-test...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Dear testers, > > 3.9.0-rc1 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r277207. > > This took a little longer than I'd hoped, but I think the branch is in > a decent state now. > > There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get the > real testing started to see where we're at. > > Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how > it goes. I'll upload source, docs, and your binaries to the > pre-release page once they're ready. > > Thanks, > Hans > ___ > Release-testers mailing list > release-test...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers > -- -Brian ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On 30 Jul 2016, at 00:57, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers wrote: > > 3.9.0-rc1 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r277207. After fixing two compiler-rt test failures (see r277297 and r277300) and one openmp test link failure (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D23084), I'm left with only two failing tests: Failing Tests (2): ThreadSanitizer-x86_64 :: inlined_memcpy_race2.cc ThreadSanitizer-x86_64 :: signal_reset.cc Expected Passes: 28511 Expected Failures : 155 Unsupported Tests : 1080 Unexpected Failures: 2 These both fail because they hang indefinitely, and have to be killed for check-all to continue. Unfortunately this is in TSan, which does not work at all on FreeBSD 11 and higher, due to a conflict of initialization order with our jemalloc. So I am not extremely keen on fixing this before the release. I uploaded the following: SHA256 (clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc1-amd64-unknown-freebsd10.tar.xz) = 8d3b1d50c00901d235c110a84afa5c16f0e80683928a47e31f8c189a41268698 SHA256 (clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc1-i386-unknown-freebsd10.tar.xz) = 602373772b4ff2fc70c97f5483db33e3ecfd24122aed96d6fe083bae3ea0e6f6 For i386 and amd64, this contains llvm, clang, compiler-rt and lldb, while on amd64 there is also openmp. We cannot yet build libc++, libcxxabi and libunwind, due to some missing functionality in our system unwinder. Maybe if test-release.sh supported building libc++ separately, I could add it for the next RC. -Dimitry signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On 07/29/2016 11:57 PM, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers wrote: Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how it goes. I'll upload source, docs, and your binaries to the pre-release page once they're ready. Uploaded clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc1-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz I had this error: Using configuration variant: libcxxabi -- Testing: 35960 tests, 8 threads -- Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. *** stack smashing detected ***: /home/ben/development/llvm/3.9.0/rc1/Phase3/Release/llvmCore-3.9.0-rc1.obj/projects/compiler-rt/test/safestack/Output/canary.c.tmp.ssp terminated 80.. 90.. Testing Time: 1695.83s Expected Passes: 34915 Expected Failures : 212 Unsupported Tests : 833 [100%] Built target check-all LNT was fine. Ben ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On 2 August 2016 at 16:17, Hans Wennborg wrote: > Looks like Diana's fix was merged in r277462, so it sounds like we're all > good. Yup, we're good. Thanks! --renato ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 1 August 2016 at 17:37, Hans Wennborg wrote: >>> Is it time to do the back-ports planned? I only have a very minor bug fix. >> >> Sure! > > Backported the v6T2/DSP patch. Now just needs to get Diana's AArch64 > fix and we're fine. Looks like Diana's fix was merged in r277462, so it sounds like we're all good. Thanks, Hans ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On 1 August 2016 at 17:37, Hans Wennborg wrote: >> Is it time to do the back-ports planned? I only have a very minor bug fix. > > Sure! Backported the v6T2/DSP patch. Now just needs to get Diana's AArch64 fix and we're fine. cheers, --renato ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
Hi, On the OpenMandriva side, x86_64 passes all checks. We're having some problems with other architectures though (see below): x86_64 succeeded, packages are here: https://abf.openmandriva.org/build_lists/76792 i586 fails to build, but this seems to be an issue with 3.8.1 (which we're using to build 3.9): /usr/bin/clang++ -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -Ilib/Support -I../lib/Support -Iinclude -I../include -Os -pipe -Wformat -Werror=format-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=atom -march=i586 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -march=i686 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE=1 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE=1 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wcovered-switch-default -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor -Werror=date-time -std=c++1y -fcolor-diagnostics -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Os -pipe -Wformat -Werror=format-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=atom -march=i586 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -march=i686 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE=1 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE=1 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -MD -MT lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/PrettyStackTrace.cpp.o -MF lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/PrettyStackTrace.cpp.o.d -o lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/PrettyStackTrace.cpp.o -c ../lib/Support/PrettyStackTrace.cpp clang-3.8: ../include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineOperand.h:411: int64_t llvm::MachineOperand::getImm() const: Assertion `isImm() && "Wrong MachineOperand accessor"' failed. #0 0xf4abd075 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMSupport.so.3.8+0x95075) #1 0xf4abd2c7 (/usr/lib/libLLVMSupport.so.3.8+0x952c7) #2 0xf4abbbf1 llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() (/usr/lib/libLLVMSupport.so.3.8+0x93bf1) #3 0xf4abbf49 (/usr/lib/libLLVMSupport.so.3.8+0x93f49) #4 0xf7714d20 0xd20 __GI_raise #5 0xf7714d20 #6 0xf7714d20 __GI_abort (+0xd20) #7 0xf4650ef0 __GI___assert_fail (/lib/libc.so.6+0x26ef0) #8 0xf46520e5 __GI___assert_perror_fail (/lib/libc.so.6+0x280e5) #9 0xf464b126 (/lib/libc.so.6+0x21126) #10 0xf464b162 llvm::X86InstrInfo::getSPAdjust(llvm::MachineInstr const*) const (/lib/libc.so.6+0x21162) #11 0xf65a0db6 (/usr/lib/libLLVMX86CodeGen.so.3.8+0x30db6) #12 0xf667640d (/usr/lib/libLLVMX86CodeGen.so.3.8+0x10640d) #13 0xf61029dc llvm::MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCodeGen.so.3.8+0x1739dc) #14 0xf6105002 llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCodeGen.so.3.8+0x176002) #15 0xf60ab337 llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCodeGen.so.3.8+0x11c337) #16 0xf50d7e6f llvm::legacy::PassManagerImpl::run(llvm::Module&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCore.so.3.8+0x19de6f) #17 0xf50d816b llvm::legacy::PassManager::run(llvm::Module&) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCore.so.3.8+0x19e16b) #18 0xf50d857f clang::EmitBackendOutput(clang::DiagnosticsEngine&, clang::CodeGenOptions const&, clang::TargetOptions const&, clang::LangOptions const&, llvm::StringRef, llvm::Module*, clang::BackendAction, llvm::raw_pwrite_stream*) (/usr/lib/libLLVMCore.so.3.8+0x19e57f) #19 0xf50d8734 (/usr/lib/libLLVMCore.so.3.8+0x19e734) #20 0xf59fc72c clang::ParseAST(clang::Sema&, bool, bool) (/usr/lib/libclangCodeGen.so.3.8+0x6972c) #21 0xf5b2cd85 clang::ASTFrontendAction::ExecuteAction() (/usr/lib/libclangCodeGen.so.3.8+0x199d85) #22 0xf3b2b294 clang::CodeGenAction::ExecuteAction() (/usr/lib/libclangParse.so.3.8+0x24294) #23 0xf582583e clang::FrontendAction::Execute() (/usr/lib/libclangFrontend.so.3.8+0x8783e) #24 0xf5b2d3e1 clang::CompilerInstance::ExecuteAction(clang::FrontendAction&) (/usr/lib/libclangCodeGen.so.3.8+0x19a3e1) #25 0xf5826660 clang::ExecuteCompilerInvocation(clang::CompilerInstance*) (/usr/lib/libclangFrontend.so.3.8+0x88660) #26 0xf58029e1 cc1_main(llvm::ArrayRef, char const*, void*) (/usr/lib/libclangFrontend.so.3.8+0x649e1) #27 0xf579aead main (/usr/lib/libclangFrontendTool.so.3.8+0x2ead) #28 0x08057178 __libc_start_main (/usr/bin/clang-3.8+0x8057178) #29 0x08052a9b _start (/usr/bin/clang-3.8+0x8052a9b) 0 libLLVMSupport.so.3.8 0xf4abd075 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&) + 40 1 libLLVMSupport.so.3.8 0xf4abd2c7 2 libLLVMSupport.so.3.8 0xf4abbbf1 llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() + 60 3 libLLVMSupport.so.3.8 0xf4abbf49 4 0xf7714d20 __kernel_sigreturn + 0 5 libc.so.6 0xf4650ef0 gsignal + 73 6 libc.so.6 0xf46520e5 abort + 278 7 libc.so.6 0xf464b126 __assert_fail + 0 8 libc.so.6 0xf464b162 __asser
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 23:57, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers > wrote: >> There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get the >> real testing started to see where we're at. > > First wave of testing pass on ARM. Uploaded to the FTP server. > > Is it time to do the back-ports planned? I only have a very minor bug fix. Sure! Cheers, Hans ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged
On 29 July 2016 at 23:57, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers wrote: > There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get the > real testing started to see where we're at. First wave of testing pass on ARM. Uploaded to the FTP server. Is it time to do the back-ports planned? I only have a very minor bug fix. cheers, --renato ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
