[llvm-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 is here (original) (raw)

Rainer Orth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 10 07:32:49 PST 2020

Hi Hans,

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Rainer Orth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Hi Hans, > It took a bit longer than planned due to master being a somewhat > unstable at the branch point, but Release Candidate 1 has now been > tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1. > > Source code and docs are available at > https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc1 > > Pre-built binaries will be added there as they become available. I've already uploaded Solaris 11.4/AMD64 and Solaris 11.4/SPARCv9 binaries to releases-origin.llvm.org some time ago. Sorry, I missed this. Did you send an email when you uploaded? Can you

I forgot, probably assuming that uploads to releases-origin.llvm.org would be noticed (or even picked up) automatically.

please share the SHA1 or similar hashes so I can verify that I get the right ones on my end?

Sure:

b029dbf9216ce5a2ebdf3219c05e3cc27ce2b2dd clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-amd64-pc-solaris2.11.tar.xz 32056e671b4f25f23764b14a2b07e75b2bdb444a clang+llvm-10.0.0-rc1-sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11.tar.xz

While amd64-pc-solaris2.11 results are en par with the LLVM 9.0.0 ones (some failures fixed or xfailed since then)

Expected Passes : 54488 Expected Failures : 180 Unsupported Tests : 2409 Unexpected Failures: 23 the sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11 ones are horrible compared to the 9.0.0 ones: * 9.0.0 final: Expected Passes : 48477 Expected Failures : 180 Unsupported Tests : 1443 Unexpected Passes : 1 Unexpected Failures: 382 * 10.0.0 rc1: Expected Passes : 47959 Expected Failures : 186 Unsupported Tests : 1615 Unexpected Passes : 1 Unexpected Failures: 4278 A large number of those only occur for non-SPARC targets (something I usually don't test at all), and even the buildbot is way way better with only 51 unexpected failures. However, that one only does a 1-stage build where errors due to Bug 42535 don't occur. Still, comparing master results on Solaris 11.5/SPARC for all targets between a 1-stage build with gcc 9.1.0 and a 2-stage build shows a similar pattern: * 1-stage: Expected Passes : 53734 Expected Failures : 205 Unsupported Tests : 2495 Unexpected Passes : 1 Unexpected Failures: 228 * 2-stage: Expected Passes : 45756 Expected Failures : 205 Unsupported Tests : 2495 Unexpected Passes : 2 Unexpected Failures: 7303 I fear this is effectively impossible to analyze let alone fix for the 10.0.0 release. Thanks for the report! I guess since this doesn't seem to be well covered by continuous testing, it's not going to be good :-/

Right: I simply don't have the cpu cycles to run 2- or even 3-stage builds on sparc, and as I mentioned a fast majority of issues only occurs there. All I can afford is 1-stage rebuilds with gcc 9 plus check-all, and those look reasonable.

Should we highlight the status of Solaris/Sparc support in the release notes somehow?

I guess so, especially since the results are so much worse then the 9.0.0 ones.

Rainer

--

Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list