On Apr 22, 2007, at 1:40 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Apr 21, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote:
On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
getABIAlignment not
On Apr 21, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
>>> I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
>>> getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a
>>> t
On Apr 21, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
>> I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
>> getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a
>> type,
>> is this a bug?
>
> It could be. isn't a useful vector
On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:28 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
getABIAlignment
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:28 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
> >> I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
> >> getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a
On Apr 21, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
>> I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
>> getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a
>> type,
>> is this a bug?
>
> It could be. isn't a useful vecto
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 18:07 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote:
> I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
> getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a type,
> is this a bug?
It could be. isn't a useful vector so it probably doesn't
have an ABI Alignment. It should, howev
I'm getting a regression after my fixes that's coming from
getABIAlignment not finding an alignment to use for a
type, is this a bug?
--
Christopher Lamb
On Apr 21, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
Jeff,
I'm seeing these too. They all seem to be related to Christopher
Lamb's
al
The regressions are related to the following code in
SelectionDAG.cpp. MVT::getTypeForValueType asserts if passed a Vector
as VT.
if (Alignment == 0) { // Ensure that codegen never sees alignment 0
const Type *Ty = MVT::getTypeForValueType(VT);
Alignment = TLI.getTargetData()->getAB
Blarg!
Sorry folks. First major commit and I missed regressions. Reverting
was the right thing to do, sorry I wasn't up earlier.
--
Christopher Lamb
On Apr 21, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
Jeff,
I'm seeing these too. They all seem to be related to Christopher
Lamb's
alignment
Jeff,
I'm seeing these too. They all seem to be related to Christopher Lamb's
alignment changes. If he doesn't step up to fix soon, I'll revert the
changes.
Reid.
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 07:30 -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> Commits in the last 12 hours or so have broken 34 regression tests and
> caus
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.
Jeff,
> 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,
> a
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 failu
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
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
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 12:01 -0800, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> In the two weeks since I last ran them, the regression tests have gone
> from 4 to 63 unexpected failures. Is this expected?
No, TOT gives me 6 right now .. 5 in the new ARM backend (be patient)
and 1 in the X86 backend.
>
> __
17 matches
Mail list logo
