Jeff, On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 14:49 -0800, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > > >> Well, I'm using the most recent version of both llvm and llvm-gcc > >> (revision 254). 21 of the failures are ARM, but I don't care about > >> those. llvm-test is still running, but it's on track to matching the > >> 275 failures I got the last time I ran it. > >> > >> I'm not going to switch to Linux or OS X or even 32-bit FreeBSD, and I'm > >> not going to spend the time figuring out why LLVM hates 64-bit > >> FreeBSD--especially as it's getting worse, not better--and it's clear no > >> one else is going to spend the time either. So I'm putting LLVM back on > >> hold until later this year and hopefully the situation will be better > >> then. > > > > Fair enough. However, unless *someone* on 64-bit freebsd > > investigates, it won't get better. There is not much we can do about > > this.
FWIW, I agree with Chris on this. Someone on FreeBSD needs to do the work. However, I'd be willing to take a crack at the obvious failures. Most likely they are portability issues in the test cases. Could you forward me the output of a nightly test run? I might be able to make a dent in it. Reid. > > > > -Chris > > > > > True enough, but that someone will not be me. I estimate that the work > required exceeds the benefits of me using LLVM. The imbalance is far > worse on Windows. And as if to prove the point, llvm-test has just > finished, with a record 287 failures. So after fixing 5 of them, > another 12 have started failing. > _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
