[LoopInterchange] Don't consider loops with BTC=0 #167113

sjoerdmeijer · 2025-11-08T09:20:17Z

Do not consider loops with a zero backedge taken count as candidates for interchange. This seems like a sensible thing to do to me, because it suggests the loop doesn't execute and there is no point in interchanging.

This avoids triggering an assert about phis and their uses. I have a feeling that this fix might be hiding the issue, but I haven't yet been able to trigger the assert with other test cases; every time the loops are rejected for other reasons.

Since I think this is a self-contained improvement that avoids a lot of test failures, I propose to reject this loops while I investigate further if I can still trigger this in some way.

(Partial) fix for #163954

llvmbot · 2025-11-08T09:20:49Z

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Sjoerd Meijer (sjoerdmeijer)

Changes

Do not consider loops with a zero backedge taken count as candidates for interchange. This seems like a sensible thing to do to me, because it suggests the loop doesn't execute and there is no point in interchanging.

This avoids triggering an assert about phis and their uses. I have a feeling that this fix might be hiding the issue, but I haven't yet been able to trigger the assert with other test cases; every time the loops are rejected for other reasons.

Since I think this is a self-contained improvement that avoids a lot of test failures, I propose to reject this loops while I investigate further if I can still trigger this in some way.

(Partial) fix for #163954

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/167113.diff

7 Files Affected:

(modified) llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp (+14)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchanged-loop-nest-4.ll (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/lcssa-phi-outer-latch.ll (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr57148.ll (+1-1)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll (+1-1)

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp
index 9aaf6a5aa4d6a..11e1723eb03d9 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp
@@ -101,6 +101,12 @@ static cl::opt<unsigned int> MaxLoopNestDepth(
     "loop-interchange-max-loop-nest-depth", cl::init(10), cl::Hidden,
     cl::desc("Maximum depth of loop nest considered for the transform"));
 
+// This is mainly for testing purposes, and certain tests that rely on
+// behaviour that is more difficult to trigger otherwise.
+static cl::opt<bool> SkipLoopsWithZeroBTC(
+    "loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc", cl::init(true), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("Do not consider loops with a backedge taken count of 0"));
+
 // We prefer cache cost to vectorization by default.
 static cl::list<RuleTy> Profitabilities(
     "loop-interchange-profitabilities", cl::ZeroOrMore,
@@ -428,6 +434,13 @@ static bool isComputableLoopNest(ScalarEvolution *SE,
       LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Couldn't compute backedge count\n");
       return false;
     }
+    // A loop with a backedge that isn't taken, e.g. an unconditional branch
+    // true, isn't really a loop and we don't want to consider it as a
+    // candidate.
+    if (ExitCountOuter && SkipLoopsWithZeroBTC && ExitCountOuter->isZero()) {
+      LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Single iteration loop\n");
+      return false;
+    }
     if (L->getNumBackEdges() != 1) {
       LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "NumBackEdges is not equal to 1\n");
       return false;
@@ -1808,6 +1821,7 @@ static void moveLCSSAPhis(BasicBlock *InnerExit, BasicBlock *InnerHeader,
 
     assert(all_of(P.users(),
                   [OuterHeader, OuterExit, IncI, InnerHeader](User *U) {
+		  dbgs() << "USER: "; U->dump();
                     return (cast<PHINode>(U)->getParent() == OuterHeader &&
                             IncI->getParent() == InnerHeader) ||
                            cast<PHINode>(U)->getParent() == OuterExit;
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchanged-loop-nest-4.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchanged-loop-nest-4.ll
index 70fff161154d8..a4dbd5a005082 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchanged-loop-nest-4.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/interchanged-loop-nest-4.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; REQUIRES: asserts
-; RUN: opt < %s -passes="loop(loop-interchange,loop-interchange)" -cache-line-size=8 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info \
+; RUN: opt < %s -passes="loop(loop-interchange,loop-interchange)" -cache-line-size=8 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false \
 ; RUN:  -debug-only=loop-interchange 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/lcssa-phi-outer-latch.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/lcssa-phi-outer-latch.ll
index a5e3accaf8e10..ec02110c90e3b 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/lcssa-phi-outer-latch.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/lcssa-phi-outer-latch.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 6
-; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-scev -verify-loop-lcssa -S | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -cache-line-size=64 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-scev -verify-loop-lcssa -S | FileCheck %s
 
 ; This test is checking that blocks outer.body and outer.latch, where outer.body is the exit
 ; block of the inner loop and outer.latch the latch of the outer loop, correctly
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll
index 6b25c3bc9a4ba..56140236825b7 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
-; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S
+; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -S
 ; RUN: FileCheck --input-file=%t %s
 
 @b = external dso_local global [5 x i32], align 16
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll
index c25c4fadd3042..8ce3d59e3420f 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S \
-; RUN:     -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1
+; RUN:     -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1
 ; RUN: FileCheck --input-file=%t --check-prefix=REMARKS %s
 
 @a = global i32 0
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr57148.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr57148.ll
index 0d4194762a692..51cad15964ed4 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr57148.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr57148.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
-; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=4 -loop-interchange-threshold=-100 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-scev -verify-loop-lcssa -S | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -cache-line-size=4 -loop-interchange-threshold=-100 -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-scev -verify-loop-lcssa -S | FileCheck %s
 
 ; Make sure the loops are in LCSSA form after loop interchange,
 ; and loop interchange does not hit assertion errors and crash.
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll
index 27d99e05e84ee..fad6a6e70037c 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S \
-; RUN:     -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN:     -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 ; RUN: FileCheck --input-file=%t --check-prefix=REMARKS %s

github-actions · 2025-11-08T09:21:55Z

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

madhur13490

LGTM with some nits.

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/zero-btc.ll

fhahn · 2025-11-09T20:43:29Z

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

+// This is mainly for testing purposes, and certain tests that rely on
+// behaviour that is more difficult to trigger otherwise.
+static cl::opt<bool> SkipLoopsWithZeroBTC(
+    "loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc", cl::init(true), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("Do not consider loops with a backedge taken count of 0"));


Not sure about adding an option just for this this; Ignoring BTC = 0 seems fine, although it would be good to first check/fix the phi assertion

I agree that this option ideally shouldn't exist. I will clarify that in the comment. The point is that are a couple of current tests that test some corner cases, which we wouldn't test anymore as they would now be rejected for interchange. Thus, keeping the behaviour with this option is easier than re-architecting the tests. But I will follow up on this as I am going to see if I can trigger the assert in different ways.

Oh I see, so there are a few tests with BTC = 0? if so, they should be updated to have a non-zero BTC, but this needs more than simply adjusting the exit check?

Yes, exactly that. Modifying these tests isn't a straightforward fix up, and requires diving into the behaviour that they want to test and coming up with a modified or new test case. I will do that for this assert that I am trying to address in a follow up, but want to delay that for the existing test cases.

I think it's fine to simply changing the exit check for almost all cases.

kasuga-fj

The transformation will abort if any loop with BTC=0 is found. So we will lost the opportunity to interchange the j-loop and k-loop in the following case.

for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
  for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
    for (int k = 0; k < 100; k++)
      A[k][j] = ...;

I think it's okay as such cases are probably rare. But in that case, I'm not sure if it's make sense to treat BTC=0 as a special case in the first place.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-11T09:13:12Z

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/reductions-across-inner-and-outer-loop.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S \
-; RUN:     -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN:     -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1 | FileCheck %s


If I don't overlook anything, there are no cases where BTC=0 in this file.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-11T09:20:06Z

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43176-move-to-new-latch.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
-; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S
+; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -S


It seems to be a problem that has existed for some time, but as for this case, the pseudo code and the IR appear to be inconsistent. I think it's a good opportunity to revise the exit condition.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-11T09:27:31Z

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/pr43326.ll

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ; RUN: opt < %s -passes=loop-interchange -cache-line-size=64 -pass-remarks-missed='loop-interchange' -pass-remarks-output=%t -S \
-; RUN:     -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1
+; RUN:     -loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc=false -verify-dom-info -verify-loop-info -verify-loop-lcssa -stats 2>&1


This is the only case where it's unclear to me what's being tested.

Looking at the commit message from when this test was added, this also appears to be a case that BTC=0 is not required.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-11T09:29:02Z

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

+// This is mainly for testing purposes, and certain tests that rely on
+// behaviour that is more difficult to trigger otherwise.
+static cl::opt<bool> SkipLoopsWithZeroBTC(
+    "loop-interchange-skip-zero-btc", cl::init(true), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("Do not consider loops with a backedge taken count of 0"));


I think it's fine to simply changing the exit check for almost all cases.

Precommit test fixups for llvm#167113

sjoerdmeijer · 2025-11-12T19:53:53Z

I have fixed the test cases in #167748

I will need to rebase this change on top of that; we then probably don't need the option.

I will also see if I can move the isZero() BTC check around: instead of rejecting the whole loop nest, maybe only reject that loop as candidate. If for one reason or another that is difficult, then I will keep it as it is, but will at least add another test case for that.

Precommit test fixups for #167113

Do not consider loops with a zero backedge taken count as candidates for interchange. This seems like a sensible thing to do to me, because it suggests the loop doesn't execute and there is no point in interchanging. This avoids triggering an assert about phis and their uses. I have a feeling that this fix might be hiding the issue, but I haven't yet been able to trigger the assert with other test cases; every time the loops are rejected for other reasons. Since I think this is a self-contained improvement that avoids a lot of test failures, I propose to reject this loops while I investigate further if I can still trigger this in some way. (Partial) fix for llvm#163954

…omment.

sjoerdmeijer · 2025-11-17T17:53:14Z

The last update address @kasuga-fj 's remark:

It moves the code from isComputableLoopNest to avoid that a whole loop nest is rejected, and
a new test has been added to check that ,
The checks now live in isProfitable,
A bit of code has been added to avoid recalculating the BTC; the BTC is calculated early on, and that is now passed on to the later stage.
Some existing tests needed patching up because they still had a BTC=0, I missed that in the clean up patch [LoopInterchange] Fix tests with loops that have BTC=0. NFC. #167748.

github-actions · 2025-11-17T18:42:51Z

🐧 Linux x64 Test Results

186374 tests passed
4855 tests skipped

kasuga-fj

Can you please merge or rebase main instead of committing the same changes as #167748?

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-18T09:30:10Z

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

                                           LPMUpdater &U) {
  Function &F = *LN.getParent();
  SmallVector<Loop *, 8> LoopList(LN.getLoops());
+  std::map<const Loop *, const SCEV *> LoopBTC;


ScalarEvolution caches the results of BTC. In general, it would be better to call getBackedgeTakenCount every time than holding local cache unless there are special circumstances.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-18T09:37:20Z

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/loopnest-with-outer-btc0.ll

+
+@D = common global [100 x [100 x [100 x i32]]] zeroinitializer
+
+; Test for interchange in


Could you add a brief description to clarify the purpose of this test? Like "check the loop with BTC=0 is considered unprofitable".

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-18T09:44:15Z

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/loopnest-with-outer-btc0.ll

+
+inner2.body:
+  %k = phi i64 [ 0, %inner1.header ], [ %inc, %inner2.body ]
+  %arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x [100 x i32]]], ptr @D, i64 0, i64 %i, i64 %k, i64 %j


Suggested change

%arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x [100 x i32]]], ptr @D, i64 0, i64 %i, i64 %k, i64 %j

%arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i32]], ptr @D, i64 %i, i64 %k, i64 %j

I remember hearing somewhere that this is the canonical form.

sjoerdmeijer · 2025-11-18T10:24:16Z

Can you please merge or rebase main instead of committing the same changes as #167748?

This is rebased/merged. The changes here to pr43326.ll and pr57148.ll should indeed have been included in #167748, but I missed them earlier. They were a bit masked by other things, and I discovered them during the rebase/changes here.

Thanks for the review and remarks, I am now addressing them.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-18T10:27:43Z

This is rebased/merged. The changes here to pr43326.ll and pr57148.ll should indeed have been included in #167748, but I missed them earlier. They were a bit masked by other things, and I discovered them during the rebase/changes here.

Ah, I see, I misunderstood.

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

kasuga-fj

LGTM modulo some nits.

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-19T09:18:49Z

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

 #include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
 #include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h"
 #include <cassert>
+#include <map>


Suggested change

#include <map>

Maybe unnecessary?

kasuga-fj · 2025-11-19T09:21:28Z

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp

+  // A loop with a backedge that isn't taken, e.g. an unconditional branch
+  // true, isn't really a loop and we don't want to consider it as a


I think this is a loop by definition, even if BTC=0. I feel this comment is a bit misleading.

Meinersbur

LGTM

sjoerdmeijer · 2025-11-19T11:28:21Z

Thanks for the reviews!

sjoerdmeijer requested review from Meinersbur, amehsan, kasuga-fj, madhur13490 and ram-NK November 8, 2025 09:20

llvmbot added the llvm:transforms label Nov 8, 2025

sjoerdmeijer force-pushed the interchange-no-loops branch from 899d66b to c19c535 Compare November 8, 2025 09:21

alexey-bataev approved these changes Nov 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

madhur13490 approved these changes Nov 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

llvm/test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/zero-btc.ll Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fhahn reviewed Nov 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

kasuga-fj reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

sjoerdmeijer added a commit to sjoerdmeijer/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Nov 12, 2025

[LoopInterchange] Fix tests with loops that have BTC=0. NFC.

5dfb2db

Precommit test fixups for llvm#167113

sjoerdmeijer mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025

[LoopInterchange] Fix tests with loops that have BTC=0. NFC. #167748

Merged

sjoerdmeijer added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025

[LoopInterchange] Fix tests with loops that have BTC=0. NFC. (#167748)

00000dc

Precommit test fixups for #167113

sjoerdmeijer added 5 commits November 14, 2025 03:22

Forgto to add test-case

f51d9f6

Removed datalayout from test, improved debug message, and clarified c…

e3abad5

…omment.

TMP

5d9326a

Don't reject the whole loopnest, fixed up and added test case.

56c3e9b

sjoerdmeijer force-pushed the interchange-no-loops branch from a6a1caf to 56c3e9b Compare November 17, 2025 17:41

Remove commented out option

7d68d9c

kasuga-fj reviewed Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Meinersbur reviewed Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopInterchange.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Removed BTC caching, fixed up test case.

9d548a5

kasuga-fj approved these changes Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

sjoerdmeijer mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2025

[LoopInterchange] Can only replace phis iff the uses are in the loop nest exit or ... #163954

Open

Meinersbur approved these changes Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Addressed last comments

738e6b6

sjoerdmeijer merged commit a2ddb02 into llvm:main Nov 19, 2025
10 checks passed

sjoerdmeijer deleted the interchange-no-loops branch November 19, 2025 13:13


		@D = common global [100 x [100 x [100 x i32]]] zeroinitializer

		; Test for interchange in

	%arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x [100 x i32]]], ptr @D, i64 0, i64 %i, i64 %k, i64 %j
	%arrayidx8 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i32]], ptr @D, i64 %i, i64 %k, i64 %j

		// A loop with a backedge that isn't taken, e.g. an unconditional branch
		// true, isn't really a loop and we don't want to consider it as a

[LoopInterchange] Don't consider loops with BTC=0 #167113

[LoopInterchange] Don't consider loops with BTC=0 #167113

Conversation

sjoerdmeijer commented Nov 8, 2025

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Nov 8, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

madhur13490 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kasuga-fj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sjoerdmeijer commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

sjoerdmeijer commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🐧 Linux x64 Test Results

Uh oh!

kasuga-fj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sjoerdmeijer commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

kasuga-fj commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kasuga-fj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Meinersbur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sjoerdmeijer commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Nov 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading