On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Thomas Trepl wrote:
>
> Rerun the tests here with "ninja check{,-clang{,-tooling}}" - not
> "make". I used
>
> CC=gcc CXX=g++ \
> cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
> -DLLVM_ENABLE_FFI=ON \
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \
> -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON \
> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="host;AMDGPU" \
> -DLLVM_BUILD_TESTS=ON \
> -Wno-dev -G Ninja ..
>
> The summary looks fine to me:
>
> [0/3] Running the LLVM regression tests
> -- Testing: 23298 tests, 4 threads --
> Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90..
> Testing Time: 106.64s
> Expected Passes : 15113
> Expected Failures : 56
> Unsupported Tests : 8129
> [1/3] Running lit suite /tmp/llvm/build/llvm-
> 6.0.1.src/tools/clang/test/Tooling
> llvm-lit: /tmp/llvm/build/llvm-
> 6.0.1.src/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py:334: note: using clang: /tmp/l
> lvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/build/bin/clang
> -- Testing: 26 tests, 4 threads --
> Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90..
> Testing Time: 3.32s
> Expected Passes : 26
> [2/3] Running the Clang regression tests
> llvm-lit: /tmp/llvm/build/llvm-
> 6.0.1.src/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py:334: note: using clang:
> /tmp/llvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/build/bin/clang
> -- Testing: 11832 tests, 4 threads --
> Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90..
> Testing Time: 135.52s
> Expected Passes : 11572
> Expected Failures : 18
> Unsupported Tests : 242
> ...
>
> When running "ninja check-all" it looks like (same build instructions,
> clean build):
>
> ...
> Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90..
>
> 1 warning(s) in tests.
> Testing Time: 615.44s
> ********************
> Failing Tests (8):
> LeakSanitizer-AddressSanitizer-x86_64 ::
> TestCases/Linux/use_tls_dynamic.cc
> LeakSanitizer-Standalone-x86_64 ::
> TestCases/Linux/use_tls_dynamic.cc
> MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: Linux/sunrpc.cc
> MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: Linux/sunrpc_bytes.cc
> MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: Linux/sunrpc_string.cc
> MemorySanitizer-X86_64 :: dtls_test.c
> SanitizerCommon-lsan-x86_64-Linux ::
> Posix/sanitizer_set_death_callback_test.cc
> ThreadSanitizer-x86_64 :: sunrpc.cc
>
> Expected Passes : 29119
> Expected Failures : 103
> Unsupported Tests : 8914
> Unexpected Failures: 8
> FAILED: CMakeFiles/check-all
> ...
>
> So, comparable to Ken's results but different anyhow - all failures
> have to with the rpc header files. Interesting that cmake checks for
> them and states that they are not found but continues (see the first
> two lines of following grep output), so i think they are no hard
> prerequisites. The tests seems not taking care of not having the
> headers available. I simply did a grep on the my log file:
>
> # grep "rpc/.*not found" llvm-check-all.log
> -- Looking for rpc/xdr.h - not found
> -- Looking for tirpc/rpc/xdr.h - not found>
> /home/lfs/tmp/llvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/projects/compiler-
> rt/test/msan/Linux/sunrpc.cc:15:10: fatal error: 'rpc/xdr.h' file not
> found
> /home/lfs/tmp/llvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/projects/compiler-
> rt/test/msan/Linux/sunrpc_bytes.cc:8:10: fatal error: 'rpc/xdr.h' file
> not found
> /home/lfs/tmp/llvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/projects/compiler-
> rt/test/msan/Linux/sunrpc_string.cc:8:10: fatal error: 'rpc/xdr.h' file
> not found
> /home/lfs/tmp/llvm/build/llvm-6.0.1.src/projects/compiler-
> rt/test/tsan/sunrpc.cc:4:10: fatal error: 'rpc/types.h' file not found
>
> Can we assume that those unexpected failures are cause by a flaw in the
> test suite?
>
I think so. I was going to suggest dropping back to the targets DJ
was using, but I see that there were a lot fewer expected passes
there (11572 instead of 29119). As to the marginally different
number of unexpected failures, probably a minor difference in what
we have installed.
>
> Btw, just redoing build with 'make' to see if the hang is reproducable
> there. If not than it may have been caused by whatever reason...
>
Currently rerunning the base build (i.e. no docs) with
hyperthreading (should be slower) and ninja -j4. It is consistently
running at 400%, unlike the build on 4 real cores which mostly only
ran at 100% and 200%.
So, it now looks as if ninja makes a muh better job of the build
than cmake's Makefiles. OTOH, building docs might be a lot messier.
Still thinking about what will suit _me_ best, but if your run with
'make' works, don't let me stop you updating with your preference.
ĸen
--
Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
