This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

xfail tests that failed with clang-3.7, gcc4.8.2 and on i386 to get buildbot green
ClosedPublic

Authored by chying on Mar 23 2015, 6:06 PM.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

chying updated this revision to Diff 22536.Mar 23 2015, 6:06 PM
chying retitled this revision from to xfail tests that failed with clang-3.7, gcc4.8.2 and on i386 to get buildbot green.
chying updated this object.
chying edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
chying added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

List of ignored tests,

For clang>=3.6,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestCPPThis.py

For gcc,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestMiBreak.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestPluginCommands.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestRegisterVariables.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestTargetWatchAddress.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestTypedefArray.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchLocation.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchLocationWithWatchSet.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchpointSetErrorCases.py

For i386,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestMiExec.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestNoreturnUnwind.py

sivachandra edited edge metadata.Mar 24 2015, 10:48 AM

My comments are not just for the author, but also for other reviewers on this change.

test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
27

This and similar comments attached to expectedFailurei386 below are confusing. Perhaps s/x86_64/i386 ? Even then, seems redundant.

Another note: Tamas has a fix for this approved. He might land it any time soon. So, may be observe the bot after his fix lands and take out the xfail decorator if the test starts passing?

test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py
25

Why do we have a bug number only for this? Also, seems like the right tracking bug number is 19893491.

Unrelated: If we should be putting internal bug numbers at all, could we just put http://b/<bugnumber> similar to how apple puts links to rdar bugs?

Oh, another point: The right subscribing list for this change is lldb-commits and not llvm-commits.

vharron accepted this revision.Mar 24 2015, 3:15 PM
vharron edited edge metadata.
vharron added inline comments.
test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
27

Suggested replacement comment

# failing config: i386 binary running on lldb built for ubuntu 14.04 x86_64
test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py
25

Yeah, let's put llvm bugzilla urls here only, try to keep it open.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 24 2015, 3:15 PM
chying added inline comments.Mar 24 2015, 4:28 PM
test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
27

The test was compiled for i386, but failed when running on x86_64 ubuntu system. It may or may not fail on actual i386 system, i didn't run this test on i386 system.

test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py
25

I agree that we do not include internal bug numbers. I put bug number for this one, only because we need the second parameter. And currently expectedFailureClang doesn't work if the first argument is skipped.
I have another patch to fix this problem.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8595
Once that one is landed, I will remove bugnumber from here.

chying updated this revision to Diff 22621.Mar 24 2015, 5:39 PM
chying edited edge metadata.

Update comments to be more descriptive
Change bug number to llvm bugzilla url

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.