10.0.1-rc4 tagged

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Hi,

I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.

-Tom

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On 8 Jul 2020, at 06:08, Tom Stellard via Release-testers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.

For this rc, I used four patches, which are attached.

Main results on amd64-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 67554
  Passes With Retry  : 1
  Expected Failures  : 265
  Unsupported Tests  : 5114
  Unexpected Passes  : 2
  Unexpected Failures: 513
  Individual Timeouts: 11

Test suite results on amd64-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 2398
  Unexpected Failures: 3

Main results on i386-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 64619
  Passes With Retry  : 1
  Expected Failures  : 248
  Unsupported Tests  : 3541
  Unexpected Passes  : 1
  Unexpected Failures: 192
  Individual Timeouts: 7

Uploaded:
SHA256 (clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-amd64-unknown-freebsd11.tar.xz) = 26b4d7554bee13386978766a4c3efb1a71569dd885c5c79673a3e69c16478286
SHA256 (clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-i386-unknown-freebsd11.tar.xz) = b4640a5efd146899f1daaa34ab33994d3f9600fbcb3593aad203102a2175925e

-Dimitry

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

fix-clang-1.diff (461 bytes) Download Attachment
fix-compiler-rt-1.diff (906 bytes) Download Attachment
fix-libcxx-1.diff (1009 bytes) Download Attachment
fix-test-suite-1.diff (573 bytes) Download Attachment
signature.asc (230 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Why are these patches not applied to the repository?


Am 09.07.2020 um 18:40 schrieb Dimitry Andric via cfe-dev:
On 8 Jul 2020, at 06:08, Tom Stellard via Release-testers [hidden email] wrote:
I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.
For this rc, I used four patches, which are attached.

Main results on amd64-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 67554
  Passes With Retry  : 1
  Expected Failures  : 265
  Unsupported Tests  : 5114
  Unexpected Passes  : 2
  Unexpected Failures: 513
  Individual Timeouts: 11

Test suite results on amd64-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 2398
  Unexpected Failures: 3

Main results on i386-freebsd11:

  Expected Passes    : 64619
  Passes With Retry  : 1
  Expected Failures  : 248
  Unsupported Tests  : 3541
  Unexpected Passes  : 1
  Unexpected Failures: 192
  Individual Timeouts: 7

Uploaded:
SHA256 (clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-amd64-unknown-freebsd11.tar.xz) = 26b4d7554bee13386978766a4c3efb1a71569dd885c5c79673a3e69c16478286
SHA256 (clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-i386-unknown-freebsd11.tar.xz) = b4640a5efd146899f1daaa34ab33994d3f9600fbcb3593aad203102a2175925e

-Dimitry

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
Uploaded:
dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2  clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7  clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af  clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz

ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131  clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1  clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz

I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only platforms that encountered them?  

I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the logs I should gather.


On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:08 PM Tom Stellard via Release-testers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.

-Tom

_______________________________________________
Release-testers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers


--
-Brian

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 21:08 -0700, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.
>

This one looks good on Gentoo.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
If there is an rc5 is it too late to get these changes in? I'd like an authoritative yes or no for the below-mentioned bug report. I'd guess it is too late but it's not my decision. And the code did just go in the tree today.

523a8513f8ba4d6b111496c541b9ba9f4d5f0261
d4ce862f2aa8b7e4b11462bd72014b08ab9468b3

    Reland "[FPEnv][Clang][Driver] Disable constrained floating point on targets lacking support."

    We currently have strict floating point/constrained floating point enabled
    for all targets. Constrained SDAG nodes get converted to the regular ones
    before reaching the target layer. In theory this should be fine.

    However, the changes are exposed to users through multiple clang options
    already in use in the field, and the changes are _completely_ _untested_
    on almost all of our targets. Bugs have already been found, like
    "https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45274".

    This patch disables constrained floating point options in clang everywhere
    except X86 and SystemZ. A warning will be printed when this happens.

    Use the new -fexperimental-strict-floating-point flag to force allowing
    strict floating point on hosts that aren't already marked as supporting
    it (X86 and SystemZ).

    Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80952


--
Kevin P. Neal
SAS/C and SAS/C++ Compiler
Compute Services
SAS Institute, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 12:08 AM
To: [hidden email]; llvm-dev <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: [llvm-dev] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

EXTERNAL

Hi,

I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.

-Tom

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.llvm.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fllvm-dev&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckevin.neal%40sas.com%7Cc96672a68ea542a2a9d308d822f48ed8%7Cb1c14d5c362545b3a4309552373a0c2f%7C0%7C0%7C637297781054914056&amp;sdata=gUT1tVuk%2BPY%2FfSshb2bLPsSOvmkbGEPuv7G3QD26Y10%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On 7/9/20 7:42 PM, Brian Cain wrote:

> Uploaded:
> dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2
>   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> 6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7
>   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> 2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af
>   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>
> ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131
>   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
> 761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1
>   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
>
> I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only
> platforms that encountered them?
>
> I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the logs
> I should gather.
>

Can you attach 2 of the binary files the are different?

-Tom

>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:08 PM Tom Stellard via Release-testers
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I've tagged 10.0.1-rc4, please test and report the results.
>
>     -Tom
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Release-testers mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers
>
>
>
> --
> -Brian

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Tom Stellard
> via llvm-dev
...

> On 7/9/20 7:42 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
> > Uploaded:
> > dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2
> >   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> > 6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7
> >   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> > 2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af
> >   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> >
> > ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131
> >   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
> > 761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1
> >   clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
> >
> > I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only
> > platforms that encountered them?
> >
> > I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the
> > logs I should gather.
> >
>
> Can you attach 2 of the binary files the are different?
>
Attached a few from each impacted platform.  Additional notes below.

# for ubuntu16, 10.0.1-rc4:
$ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log |wc -l
14

$ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log
file omptarget-nvptx_intermediate_link.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_target_impl.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_reduction.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omptarget.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_support.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_libcall.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_critical.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_data_sharing.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_task.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_cancel.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_sync.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_loop.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omp_data.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget-nvptx_generated_parallel.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3

~~~~~~~~~~

# for sles12, 10.0.1-rc3:
$ grep 'differs between' rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log |wc -l
4860

$ tail rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log
file interface.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file rtl.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file omptarget.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file Bye.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file TestPlugin.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
file ExportedFuncs.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

llvm_sles12_rc3_differences.tar (27K) Download Attachment
testing.10.0.1-rc3_sles12.log.xz (950K) Download Attachment
llvm_ubuntu16_rc4_differences.tar (478K) Download Attachment
testing.10.0.1-rc4_ubuntu16.log.xz (691K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On 7/14/20 8:35 PM, Brian Cain wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Tom Stellard
>> via llvm-dev
> ...
>> On 7/9/20 7:42 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
>>> Uploaded:
>>> dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2
>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>> 6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7
>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>> 2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af
>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>>
>>> ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131
>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
>>> 761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1
>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
>>>
>>> I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only
>>> platforms that encountered them?
>>>
>>> I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the
>>> logs I should gather.
>>>
>>
>> Can you attach 2 of the binary files the are different?
>>
>
> Attached a few from each impacted platform.  Additional notes below.
>
> # for ubuntu16, 10.0.1-rc4:
> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log |wc -l
> 14
>
> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log
> file omptarget-nvptx_intermediate_link.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_target_impl.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_reduction.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omptarget.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_support.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_libcall.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_critical.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_data_sharing.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_task.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_cancel.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_sync.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_loop.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omp_data.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_parallel.cu.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~

The difference in ubuntu 10.0.1-rc4 are in the '__nv_module_id'
section of binaries, which contains a GUID that is unique to the
binary, so this is expected.

>
> # for sles12, 10.0.1-rc3:
> $ grep 'differs between' rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log |wc -l
> 4860
>
> $ tail rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log
> file interface.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file rtl.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file omptarget.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file Bye.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file TestPlugin.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> file ExportedFuncs.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>

Do you get these same failures on sles with rc4?

-Tom

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] [llvm-dev] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
On 7/15/20 1:07 PM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:

> On 7/14/20 8:35 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Stellard
>>> via llvm-dev
>> ...
>>> On 7/9/20 7:42 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
>>>> Uploaded:
>>>> dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2
>>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>>> 6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7
>>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>>> 2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af
>>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
>>>>
>>>> ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131
>>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
>>>> 761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1
>>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
>>>>
>>>> I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only
>>>> platforms that encountered them?
>>>>
>>>> I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the
>>>> logs I should gather.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you attach 2 of the binary files the are different?
>>>
>>
>> Attached a few from each impacted platform.  Additional notes below.
>>
>> # for ubuntu16, 10.0.1-rc4:
>> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log |wc -l
>> 14
>>
>> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log
>> file omptarget-nvptx_intermediate_link.o differs between phase 2 and
>> phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_target_impl.cu.o differs between phase
>> 2 and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_reduction.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omptarget.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_support.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_libcall.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_critical.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_data_sharing.cu.o differs between phase
>> 2 and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_task.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
>> phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_cancel.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
>> phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_sync.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
>> phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_loop.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
>> phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omp_data.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_parallel.cu.o differs between phase 2
>> and phase 3
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The difference in ubuntu 10.0.1-rc4 are in the '__nv_module_id'
> section of binaries, which contains a GUID that is unique to the
> binary, so this is expected.
>
>>
>> # for sles12, 10.0.1-rc3:
>> $ grep 'differs between' rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log |wc -l
>> 4860
>>
>> $ tail rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log
>> file interface.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file rtl.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file omptarget.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file Bye.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file TestPlugin.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>> file ExportedFuncs.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
>>
>
> Do you get these same failures on sles with rc4?
>

It looks like the difference in the objects on sles is because
the compiler ID string in phase 2 and phase 3 have a different
git commit hash. The git hash in the phase 3 binaries is
acd921f02c39fa5cf7aa055b6062bfe9025e3781, which I don't see in
the llvm git tree.

-Tom

> -Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Release-testers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Release-testers] [llvm-dev] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged

David Chisnall via cfe-dev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Stellard <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]; 'Brian Cain' <[hidden email]>
> Cc: 'Release-testers' <[hidden email]>; 'Clang Dev' <cfe-
> [hidden email]>; 'openmp-dev' <[hidden email]>; 'LLDB Dev'
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Release-testers] [llvm-dev] 10.0.1-rc4 tagged
>
> On 7/15/20 1:07 PM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:
> > On 7/14/20 8:35 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: llvm-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Tom
> >>> Stellard via llvm-dev
> >> ...
> >>> On 7/9/20 7:42 PM, Brian Cain wrote:
> >>>> Uploaded:
> >>>> dcf43e25a77a2ffb4ffaa5a04babe409b2b3ffac07bc989a1dca730ecacb43c2
> >>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> >>>>
> 6db54d9f55fb41877b23f4b89e7b68d44fcc5378d615d232c820307237dc33f7
> >>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc2-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> >>>>
> 2d907945d8d8d5d2969c6947c50d91e100d5dd09ccb37214a811c11cbfa635af
> >>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-sles12.4.tar.xz
> >>>>
> >>>> ccdfda65932661e5fd4faba1fde17fe3800f39b4c21687242b7cdfdbea4cf131
> >>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
> >>>>
> 761a6f4658545f733f14dcd6c50a16b49994a4c448c779616c5716eed80b90f1
> >>>>    clang+llvm-10.0.1-rc4-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz
> >>>>
> >>>> I saw phase2/3 mismatches that seem concerning.  Are these the only
> >>>> platforms that encountered them?
> >>>>
> >>>> I can open a bug, let me know if there's particular data beyond the
> >>>> logs I should gather.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you attach 2 of the binary files the are different?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Attached a few from each impacted platform.  Additional notes below.
> >>
> >> # for ubuntu16, 10.0.1-rc4:
> >> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log |wc -l
> >> 14
> >>
> >> $ grep 'differs between' rc4/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc4.log file
> >> omptarget-nvptx_intermediate_link.o differs between phase 2 and phase
> >> 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_target_impl.cu.o differs between
> >> phase
> >> 2 and phase 3
> >> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_reduction.cu.o differs between phase 2
> >> and phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_omptarget.cu.o differs
> >> between phase 2 and phase 3 file
> >> omptarget-nvptx_generated_support.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
> >> phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_libcall.cu.o differs between
> >> phase 2 and phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_critical.cu.o
> >> differs between phase 2 and phase 3 file
> >> omptarget-nvptx_generated_data_sharing.cu.o differs between phase
> >> 2 and phase 3
> >> file omptarget-nvptx_generated_task.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
> >> phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_cancel.cu.o differs between
> >> phase 2 and phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_sync.cu.o differs
> >> between phase 2 and phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_loop.cu.o
> >> differs between phase 2 and phase 3 file
> >> omptarget-nvptx_generated_omp_data.cu.o differs between phase 2 and
> >> phase 3 file omptarget-nvptx_generated_parallel.cu.o differs between
> >> phase 2 and phase 3
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The difference in ubuntu 10.0.1-rc4 are in the '__nv_module_id'
> > section of binaries, which contains a GUID that is unique to the
> > binary, so this is expected.
> >
> >>
> >> # for sles12, 10.0.1-rc3:
> >> $ grep 'differs between' rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log |wc -l
> >> 4860
> >>
> >> $ tail rc3/logs/testing.10.0.1-rc3.log file interface.cpp.o differs
> >> between phase 2 and phase 3 file rtl.cpp.o differs between phase 2
> >> and phase 3 file omptarget.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> >> file ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3 file
> >> ompt-tsan.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3 file Bye.cpp.o
> >> differs between phase 2 and phase 3 file TestPlugin.cpp.o differs
> >> between phase 2 and phase 3 file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between
> >> phase 2 and phase 3 file PipSqueak.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and
> >> phase 3 file ExportedFuncs.cpp.o differs between phase 2 and phase 3
> >>
> >
> > Do you get these same failures on sles with rc4?

No, I did not.

> It looks like the difference in the objects on sles is because the compiler ID
> string in phase 2 and phase 3 have a different git commit hash. The git hash in
> the phase 3 binaries is acd921f02c39fa5cf7aa055b6062bfe9025e3781, which I
> don't see in the llvm git tree.

Ugh -- yes, I realize now -- this was my fault.  Apologies, I deviated from the process.  I had a local change to test-release.sh that I committed that caused this problem.  Sorry for the distraction!

-Brian

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev