[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-03 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
mstorsjo wrote: > > > > If you still need help reproducing or debugging the issue on our bot, > > > > please let me know. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, much appreciated. Can you test if > > > [mstorsjo@clang-repl-xfail](https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-project/commit/clang-repl-xfail) > > > seem

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-03 Thread via cfe-commits
dyung wrote: > > > If you still need help reproducing or debugging the issue on our bot, > > > please let me know. > > > > > > Thanks, much appreciated. Can you test if > > [mstorsjo@clang-repl-xfail](https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-project/commit/clang-repl-xfail) > > seems to run correctl

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread via cfe-commits
dyung wrote: > > If you still need help reproducing or debugging the issue on our bot, > > please let me know. > > Thanks, much appreciated. Can you test if > [mstorsjo@clang-repl-xfail](https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-project/commit/clang-repl-xfail) > seems to run correctly in this environ

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
mstorsjo wrote: > If you still need help reproducing or debugging the issue on our bot, please > let me know. Thanks, much appreciated. Can you test if https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-project/commit/clang-repl-xfail seems to run correctly in this environment? Otherwise I'll try to push it to

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread via cfe-commits
dyung wrote: If you still need help reproducing or debugging the issue on our bot, please let me know. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
mstorsjo wrote: > FTR, the "Worker" tab on that buildbot page will point you to the maintainer. Ah, there it is, I tried looking around, but overlooked that one... > But tagging me is also fine in general. Ok, thanks! > I'm unable to repro the problem locally because my local build doesn't se

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Paul T Robinson via cfe-commits
pogo59 wrote: If you want to XFAIL specifically for the Sony targets, what you suggested would work. I'm unclear about the "MSVC C++ ABI" aspect, but if that gets the test to work, go for it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 ___ cfe-co

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Paul T Robinson via cfe-commits
pogo59 wrote: FTR, the "Worker" tab on that buildbot page will point you to the maintainer. But tagging me is also fine in general. I'm unable to repro the problem locally because my local build doesn't seem to include clang-repl.exe, so the whole clang/test/Interpreter directory is Unsupporte

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
mstorsjo wrote: This broke on PS5 bots, like https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/216/builds/29677; those are configured with a triple like `x86_64-sie-ps5`, which seems to use an MSVC like C++ ABI behaviour, so I pushed a revert. Not sure whom to CC to pull in Sony people to discuss this

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-02 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
https://github.com/mstorsjo closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-01 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
mstorsjo wrote: > Very interesting... See also #68092, now I understand even less what the > problem is... No idea actually, but I tested passing `-Xcc --target=x86_64-w64-mingw32` to an MSVC-built clang-repl, and then it outputs the expected things. Not sure at what level some JIT deduplicat

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-01 Thread Vassil Vassilev via cfe-commits
https://github.com/vgvassilev approved this pull request. Thank you. Lgtm! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-01 Thread Jonas Hahnfeld via cfe-commits
https://github.com/hahnjo approved this pull request. Very interesting... See also https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/68092, now I understand even less what the problem is... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 ___ cfe-commits mai

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-01 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Martin Storsjö (mstorsjo) Changes The const.cpp testcase fails when running in MSVC mode, while it does succeed in MinGW mode. In MSVC mode, there are more constructor invocations than expected, as the printout looks like this: A(1)

[clang] [clang-repl] [test] Make an XFAIL more precise (PR #70991)

2023-11-01 Thread Martin Storsjö via cfe-commits
https://github.com/mstorsjo created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70991 The const.cpp testcase fails when running in MSVC mode, while it does succeed in MinGW mode. In MSVC mode, there are more constructor invocations than expected, as the printout looks like this: A(1), this