Hi, I have built yesterdays CVS download of LLVM on Whidbey (Microsoft Visual Studio 2005). LLVM built with trivial mods due to VS strictness compared to GCC. Basically there are missing return statement/values where Abort() is called, I replaced these with dummy constructors to get them to compile. I do not have 2003. 2005 is much stricter than 2003 and there are quite alot of warnings on certain files. There where also path differences between VS 2003 and 2005. Anyway it builds but I have not tested it yet, Fibonacci assembles and runs though. If you want detailed mods/files/diffs for LLVM on 2005 then please do ask. Trivial but good news, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050217/46e3a906/attachment.html>
Trivial? That's GREAT news! Nice job. Yes, we would be interested in the patches to get it to run. Thanks for letting us know! Reid. On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 18:50, Aaron Gray wrote:> Hi, > > I have built yesterdays CVS download of LLVM on Whidbey (Microsoft > Visual Studio 2005). > > LLVM built with trivial mods due to VS strictness compared to GCC. > Basically there are missing return statement/values where Abort() is > called, I replaced these with dummy constructors to get them to > compile. > > I do not have 2003. 2005 is much stricter than 2003 and there are > quite alot of warnings on certain files. > > There where also path differences between VS 2003 and 2005. > > Anyway it builds but I have not tested it yet, Fibonacci assembles and > runs though. > > If you want detailed mods/files/diffs for LLVM on 2005 then please > do ask. > > Trivial but good news, > > Aaron > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050216/02fff5da/attachment.sig>
>I have built yesterdays CVS download of LLVM on Whidbey (Microsoft Visual Studio 2005).Thats actually the CVS download from 15th of this month. Sorry about that, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050217/a5244207/attachment.html>
Hi Reid, I'll send a complete report tommorow, its getting late. It looks like there is alot of work to do to get the MS VC version in line with the Unix release. I am very willing to help out with porting. The tests and regression tests look a biggy maybe they would be better done on the command line using make rather than separate Visual Studio projects. As I say I am willing to help out porting so maybe to avoid duplication if someone takes charge and points to what needs doing then it would be easier than me just going blind at the problem. Aaron
Aaron Gray wrote:-> Hi, > > I have built yesterdays CVS download of LLVM on Whidbey (Microsoft Visual Studio 2005). > > LLVM built with trivial mods due to VS strictness compared to GCC. Basically there are missing return statement/values where Abort() is called, I replaced these with dummy constructors to get them to compile.Sounds like GCC is smart enough to realise it doesn't return? Neil.
GCC is smart enough to realize it doesn't return. That's because the declaration of abort() is decorated with __attribute__((__noreturn__)). So is GCC smarter than VC++? As it turns out, in VC++ the declaration of abort() is decorated with __declspec(noreturn). Whidbey is not stricter than 2003, it is merely buggier. VC++ has always complained about functions failing to return a value; this is not new in Whidbey. What is new is that it no longer pays attention to __declspec(noreturn). That is why it is difficult to justify supporting Whidbey. This bug may have been easy to work around. The next one may not be so easy. Remember, if Whidbey wasn't buggy and incomplete, you'd be paying around $1000 for it instead of downloading it for free. Neil Booth wrote:>Aaron Gray wrote:- > > > >>Hi, >> >>I have built yesterdays CVS download of LLVM on Whidbey (Microsoft Visual Studio 2005). >> >>LLVM built with trivial mods due to VS strictness compared to GCC. Basically there are missing return statement/values where Abort() is called, I replaced these with dummy constructors to get them to compile. >> >> > >Sounds like GCC is smart enough to realise it doesn't return? > >Neil. > >_______________________________________________ >LLVM Developers mailing list >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > >