Announcing: LLVM 2.9 RC2 Testing Phase

Hi all,

Well! we had a rather fruitful phase 1 testing round. Several issues were addressed. After a bit of a delay, we are ready for phase 2 testing.

This phase is to make sure that no patches submitted to fix problems and complete features in phase 1 caused further difficulties. Please download the sources, compile them, and then compile as much as you can with both clang and llvm-gcc.

Sources:

clang-2.9rc2.src.tar.gz
llvm-2.9rc2.src.tar.gz
llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9rc2.src.tar.gz
llvm-test-2.9rc2.src.tar.gz

Available here:

http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/

-bw

We are no longer accepting patches to complete features. Any unfinished features should have been disabled all ready. The only patches that we will accept are those that fix a regression from the 2.8 release. We were fairly flexible with allowing people to commit to the release branch in phase 1. But now only the release manager may commit to the release branch. And the patches must be approved by the code owners. No exceptions.

Tested with gcc 4.5.3 (20100324) on i686-w64-windows:

http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/gcc-4.5.3-windows_20110324.tar.xz
http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/llvm-clang-2.9-rc2-win32.tar.xz
http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/llvm-clang-2.9-rc2-win32.zip

[[[

And in Fedora's Rawhide development tree (not in our upcoming F-15
release, since third-party packages won't be ready in time for our May
release):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=235848

The RPMs should install fine on F-15, and you can always rebuild with
rpmbuild.

By the way, any reason LLVM ships with a bundled Google Test (gtest)
utility?

Thanks,

Hi Dongsheng,

Could you send the output for this command? I haven't seen this failure crop up before...

-bw

So that people can run the unittests. :slight_smile:

  make unittests

-bw

That's the obvious answer :slight_smile: And that reminds me, I need to enable it in our builds.

I guess I ought to clarify -- any reason one can't use the gtest tool as shipped by Google, rather than the embedded one? Either way would comply, I think, with our packaging guidelines -- but if it had been a bundled third-party library then it would have been problematic.

Thanks,

Hasn't been tested as far as I know, but otherwise if it works for you...

-eric

This change:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/branches/release_29/test/SemaCXX/goto.cpp?r1=127752&r2=128255&diff_format=h

causes:

FAIL: Clang :: SemaCXX/goto.cpp (2268 of 2917)
******************** TEST 'Clang :: SemaCXX/goto.cpp' FAILED ********************
Script:

A few reasons come to mind:

  1. We’ve had to patch GoogleTest several times to make it work with LLVM & Clang.
  2. It’s more stable to used a locked version checked in and released with LLVM & Clang.
  3. The GoogleTest developers and maintainers (I’m one of them) recommend and encourage this. We’ve considered removing support for installing it at all, and may still do so. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense outside the context of a particular source tree and build system, often requires custom modifications to the build system to use, and avoids pain when GoogleTest APIs change between versions.

Still, as Eric said, if it works for you…

Good morning, Bill.

Okay. Since it looks like there will be an RC3 release, I merged that patch in. Thank you!

-bw

The patch that added this part of the test needed a previous patch. I applied it. It looks like there will be an RC3.

-bw