Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Update to LLVM 9 #34418

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 28, 2020
Merged

Update to LLVM 9 #34418

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 28, 2020

Conversation

vchuravy
Copy link
Member

@vchuravy vchuravy commented Jan 17, 2020 •
edited
Loading

We are still missing a patch [1] which I rebased recently,
but let's see how CI takes to this.

TODO:

  • patch for D66657
  • patch for D71495
  • patch for D50010

[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D50010

@vchuravy vchuravy requested review from staticfloat and vtjnash and removed request for staticfloat January 17, 2020 18:01
This was referenced Jan 17, 2020
Closed
Merged
@vchuravy vchuravy requested a review from Keno January 17, 2020 20:03
@staticfloat
Copy link
Member

Just an FYI, I plan to merge this first: #34242

So this will need a bit of a rebase.

@JeffBezanson JeffBezanson added this to the 1.5 milestone Jan 20, 2020
@JeffBezanson
Copy link
Member

Adding to milestone for now, since we need this to enable the new stack/inline allocation optimization.

@vchuravy
handle CXX expanded BB builds
67957da
@vchuravy
allow GCChecker to compile on LLVM9
22fda2f
@vchuravy
Force clang-based platforms to choose a cxx ABI
a741e81 
MacOS and FreeBSD are `clang` based, and so don't typically care about
our cxxstring ABI versioning, but we still build them because it is
_possible_ to use `g++` with `libstdc++` on MacOS and FreeBSD, so we
still need to build the two versions.  For the typical case, however,
the julia that is built by `clang` won't care which one you use, and so
this ensures that we just download the `cxx11` one by default.
@vchuravy vchuravy changed the title [WIP] Update to LLVM 9 Update to LLVM 9 Jan 24, 2020
@vchuravy
Copy link
Member Author

@nanosoldier runbenchmarks(ALL, vs = ":master")

@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests(ALL, vs = ":master")

@vchuravy
Copy link
Member Author

vchuravy commented Jan 24, 2020 •
edited
Loading

The windows failure seems potentially real:

Error in testset cmdlineargs:
Test Failed at D:\buildbot\worker-tabularasa\tester_win32\build\share\julia\test\cmdlineargs.jl:441
  Expression: readsplit(`$exename -L $b -e 'exit(0)'`) == [realpath(b), ""]
   Evaluated: SubString{String}["C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", ""] == ["C:\\Windows\\Temp\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", ""]
Error in testset cmdlineargs:
Test Failed at D:\buildbot\worker-tabularasa\tester_win32\build\share\julia\test\cmdlineargs.jl:443
  Expression: readsplit(`$exename -L $b $a`) == [realpath(b), a, a, a, b, a]
   Evaluated: SubString{String}["C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl"] == ["C:\\Windows\\Temp\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\b.jl", "C:\\Windows\\TEMP\\jl_SEGsMQ\\a.jl"]
Error in testset cmdlineargs:

@vtjnash mentioned offline that this might be due to alignment issue.

Just noticed that it is C:\\Windows\\TEMP vs C:\\Windows\\temp. Who is lying here.

@staticfloat
Copy link
Member

Just noticed that it is C:\\Windows\\TEMP vs C:\\Windows\\temp. Who is lying here.

Both; it's actually C:\\Windows\Temp. 😂

@staticfloat staticfloat mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2020
Merged
@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

Your benchmark job has completed - possible performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @ararslan

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

Your test job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt

@vchuravy
Copy link
Member Author

Looking at the failures in PkgEval:

  • Autologistic: Different numerical answer
  • FunctionOperators: Benchmark timing changed
  • KernelDensityEstimatePlotting: Unsure
  • KissMCMC: Different numerical answer
  • PushVectors: Benchmark timing changed
  • VoronoiDelaunay: Unsure

@vchuravy
Copy link
Member Author

@nanosoldier runtests(ALL, vs = "@6af5f03d2ac7945b8cff3b5eee715a3d9446e42c")

@vchuravy
Copy link
Member Author

@nanosoldier runtests(["Autologistic", "FunctionOperators", "InfiniteLinearAlgebra", "JuliaDB", "KernelDensityEstimatePlotting", "KissMCMC", "KrylovKit", "ProgressMeter", "PushVectors", "VoronoiDelaunay"], vs = ":master")

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

Your test job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

Your test job has completed - no new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt

@vchuravy vchuravy merged commit c4c4a13 into master Jan 28, 2020
@vchuravy vchuravy deleted the vc/llvm9 branch January 28, 2020 16:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@vtjnash vtjnash Awaiting requested review from vtjnash

@staticfloat staticfloat Awaiting requested review from staticfloat

@Keno Keno Awaiting requested review from Keno

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.5
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@vchuravy @staticfloat @JeffBezanson @KristofferC @nanosoldier