#14911 closed enhancement (fixed)
llvm-12.0.0
Reported by: | Xi Ruoyao | Owned by: | Douglas R. Reno |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 11.0 |
Component: | BOOK | Version: | SVN |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description (last modified by ) ¶
New major version.
We need to wait for rustc-1.52.0, or make a rustc patch for it.
Change History (14)
comment:1 by , 4 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
follow-up: 4 comment:2 by , 4 years ago
Version: | → SVN |
---|
comment:3 by , 4 years ago
Type: | task → enhancement |
---|
Change "task" to "enhancement" on recent tickets.
comment:4 by , 4 years ago
Replying to Xi Ruoyao:
Arghh, I didn't see that comment. I've just been doing a manual build (tried installing 12.0.0 with my normal script, ignoring tests, but that failed somewhere without any indication of exactly where.
With the manual build I ran the tests:
Failed Tests (13): LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/FunctionCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/FunctionCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingLoopNestPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/ModuleCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: fstat.cpp SanitizerCommon-msan-x86_64-Linux :: Posix/lstat.cpp libFuzzer :: trace-malloc-unbalanced.test
I've now looked at what I wrote in the wiki for rustc : system llvm, when it has worked, was a quicker and smaller build with the "shared" libs. I was hoping to see if that was still true.
comment:5 by , 4 years ago
I have no idea if the additional test failures are important, but I suggest we should leave this for a while. If the inability to build current rust releases continues when rustc-1.52.0 is released, I guess that Arch or fedora will find a fix.
comment:7 by , 4 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
Grab stuff that needs to be synced to LFS and some other stuff to work on today.
comment:8 by , 4 years ago
I'm working on this first today. Since rustc-1.52 will work with it natively, there shouldn't any problems there. I'll get back to you on test results when the tests are done running, I just did a build without tests for the figures. So far, there are a few new programs, and a few removed programs.
comment:9 by , 4 years ago
Release notes can be found here:
https://releases.llvm.org/12.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html - LLVM itself
https://releases.llvm.org/12.0.0/tools/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#what-s-new-in-clang-12-0-0 - Clang
There don't seem to be any significant changes for us x86 users other than new features.
follow-up: 12 comment:10 by , 4 years ago
I wound up with 20 test failures in this run
Failed Tests (20): LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/CGSCCCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/FunctionCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/FunctionCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingLoopNestPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedInvalidatingPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/LoopCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM-Unit :: IR/./IRTests/ModuleCallbacksTest.InstrumentedSkippedPasses LLVM :: tools/llvm-libtool-darwin/L-and-l.test LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 :: TestCases/many_threads_detach.cpp LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 :: TestCases/many_tls_keys_thread.cpp LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 :: TestCases/new_array_with_dtor_0.cpp LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 :: TestCases/pointer_to_self.cpp LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 :: TestCases/print_suppressions.cpp MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: fstat.cpp SanitizerCommon-msan-x86_64-Linux :: Posix/lstat.cpp libFuzzer :: only-some-bytes.test libFuzzer :: trace-malloc-unbalanced.test Testing Time: 3878.31s Unsupported : 17096 Passed : 56605 Expectedly Failed: 128 Failed : 20
The tests took a lot longer than they did in previous releases, and I ended up in swap at some point (I have 16GB of RAM, but it looks like it hit 2GB in swap, so that would be 18GB of total RAM usage at one point).
comment:11 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Fixed at @599c6d08f14b2de210e219f7db6c701befc75820
follow-up: 13 comment:12 by , 4 years ago
Replying to Douglas R. Reno:
The tests took a lot longer than they did in previous releases, and I ended up in swap at some point (I have 16GB of RAM, but it looks like it hit 2GB in swap, so that would be 18GB of total RAM usage at one point).
A late comment: the tests use all cores (or more probably all+2 if all>=4). If I'm measuring for the book, I end up taking cores > #3 offline for these situations, and for big packages on small machines I may have to kill graphical browsers.
For building with 8 cores (in practice, SMT) 16GB is often a bit pokey.
comment:13 by , 4 years ago
Replying to ken@…:
Replying to Douglas R. Reno:
The tests took a lot longer than they did in previous releases, and I ended up in swap at some point (I have 16GB of RAM, but it looks like it hit 2GB in swap, so that would be 18GB of total RAM usage at one point).
A late comment: the tests use all cores (or more probably all+2 if all>=4). If I'm measuring for the book, I end up taking cores > #3 offline for these situations, and for big packages on small machines I may have to kill graphical browsers.
For building with 8 cores (in practice, SMT) 16GB is often a bit pokey.
That's a good point. I only have four cores, but in the future, I'll remember that
I was wrong: even rustc-1.51.0 won't work out of the box.