thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005? [Feb 2008]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Chuck Rose III

2008-Feb-18 19:57 UTC

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

>There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that
it's>supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it
doesn't>seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I missing a
>pre-build step someplace?
When config.h.in is hit in the build of configure the configure project,
the configure.h file from the win32 directory is copied to main
llvm\Config\Config.h.  The script in the sln file is: 

copy "$(InputPath)"+"$(SolutionDir)config.h"
"$(ProjectDir)..\llvm\Config\config.h"

configured as a custom build step in the solution file.  Is that not
firing from the command line compilation of the sln?

The file in the win32 directory is the config.h file that's ultimately
used when compiling everything under VStudio.  That it implies that it
concatenates is outdated information.  Ditto for the other .in files in
configure.  We should probably be doing something more clever here.

Thanks,
Chuck.


-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
On Behalf Of Ted Neward
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:12 AM
To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio
2005?

More on this:

Walking through the projects slowly:

(*) "Configure" builds with no problem.
(*) "support" fails:


C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32>msbuild llvm.sln /t:Build
Microsoft (R) Build Engine Version 2.0.50727.1433
[Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 2.0.50727.1433]
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 2005. All rights reserved.

Build started 2/18/2008 12:07:45 AM.
__________________________________________________
Project "C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\llvm.sln" (Build target(s)):

Target ValidateSolutionConfiguration:
    Building solution configuration "Debug|Win32".
Target Build:
    Target Configure:
        C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
es\vcbuild.exe C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\Configure\Configure.vcproj
"Config
ure|Win32"
    Target support:
        C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
es\vcbuild.exe
C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\Support\Support.tmp_Debug_Win32.vc
proj "Debug|Win32"
        ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(46): error C3861: 'isinf':
identifier
not fo
und
        ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(47): error C3861: 'isinf':
identifier
not fo
und
        ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(31): error C3861: 'isnan':
identifier
not fo
und
        ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(32): error C3861: 'isnan':
identifier
not fo
und
    Done building target "support" in project "llvm.sln" --
FAILED.


It looks like there's some kind of configuration that's failing here,
because for some reason IsInf.cpp thinks that my machine has isinf()
defined, when in fact there isn't any. It seems that some #defines in
config.h in include/llvm/Config are controlling this:


/* Set to 1 if the isinf function is found in <math.h> */
#define HAVE_ISINF_IN_MATH_H 1

/* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <cmath> */
/* #undef HAVE_ISNAN_IN_CMATH */

/* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <math.h> */
#define HAVE_ISNAN_IN_MATH_H 1


But I'm guessing that somehow this is supposed to be manipulated by the
build process, not by hand. Am I wrong in this?

There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that it's
supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it doesn't
seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I missing a
pre-build step someplace?

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Ted Neward
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:41 PM
> To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
Studio> 2005?
> 
> By the way, somebody (I think it was Chuck, but I don't remember for
> certain) was asking for the BuildLog.htm from building the llvm.sln
> file
> under VS 2005 SP1 for diagnostic purposes; right now the SLN is
> configured
> to produce a new BuildLog for each and every one of the projects
inside> the
> solution. I don't know who's responsible for this guy, but
that's
> probably
> not the best way to do this.
> 
> Chuck (assuming it was you), would it not be easier for me to capture
> the
> full results of an "msbuild llvm.sln" from the console for you?
> 
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> http://www.tedneward.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Chuck Rose III
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:52 AM
> > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > 2005?
> >
> > I have always built it with flex and bison installed, though I
> believe
> > Chris removed our last dependence on flex a little while back, so
you> > may not need that.  I'm using bison 2.1 which I got from the
> > getgnuwin32
> > folks.  I imagine that if you have cygwin or the like, you probably
> > already have everything.
> >
> > You will need to have the executables in your path.
> >
> > I build with VisualStudio 2k5 Professional with VStudio SP1
> installed.
> > I typically work on Vista32 or Vista64, but have compiled on XP as
> > well.
> >
> >
> > I don't know how up to date the LLVM docs related to Visual Studio
> > compilation are.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chuck.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:52 PM
> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > 2005?
> >
> > Thanks for your comment.
> > I also tried for LLVM 2.2 but got the same compilation errors on
> > VS2005.
> > (I didn't modify anything before the compilation)
> >
> > I just wonder if I need bison and flex even just in the case of
> > compiling them on VS2005 without changing anything because the LLVM
> doc
> > says "If you plan to modify any .y or .l files, you will need to
have> > bison and/or flex installed where Visual Studio can find them.
> > Otherwise, you do not need them and the pre-generated files that
come> > with the source tree will be used."
> >
> > One of errors of mine is as follows:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > ...
> > 7>llvmAsmParser.cpp
> > 7>c1xx : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file:
> > '.\llvmAsmParser.cpp': No such file or directory
> > ...
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > where llvmAsmParser.cpp is related to Bison so I am compelled to
feel> > to
> > try installing flex/bison on my machine, anyway.
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance, could you briefly tell me about that?
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Seung
> >
> > ---- Original message ----
> > >Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:59 -0800
> > >From: "Chuck Rose III" <cfr at adobe.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> > Studio
> > 2005?
> > >To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at
cs.uiuc.edu>
> > >
> > >Hola Seung,
> > >
> > >I don't know if 2.1 in particular worked.  I updated the 2.2
win32
> > >vstudio 2k5 files right before lockdown, so they should be
building.> > >You will need appropriate versions of flex and bison installed.  I
> > used
> > >the ones from getgnuwin32 on my machine.
> > >
> > >Good luck.
> > >
> > >Chuck.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > >On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:05 PM
> > >To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > >Subject: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
Studio
> > >2005?
> > >
> > >Hello all,
> > >
> > >Is there anyone has tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?
> > >I did but not succeed due to some build errors.
> > >I seem to remember I read somewhere on this list it's compiled
on
> > VS2005
> > >so I wonder...
> > >Have a good night.
> > >
> > >Thx,
> > >Seung
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date:
> > 2/13/2008 9:41 AM
> >
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> 2/17/2008
> 2:39 PM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> 2/17/2008 2:39 PM
> 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
2/17/2008
2:39 PM
 

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Ted Neward

2008-Feb-19 05:46 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

After running a build, I noticed an "llvm" directory inside the
"win32"
directory--sure enough, tucked away inside this directory are the copied
config.h and ADT files that Configure is supposed to be creating--which it
did, faithfully.

But now I'm not sure of what's going on--why are there two config.h
files?
It seems that this is what's happening; from the command-line call for
Support, which is built right after Configure:

/Od /I "..\..\include" /I ".." /D
"_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE" /D
"_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS" /D "_SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS" /D
"_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_WARNINGS" /D "WIN32"
/D "_DEBUG" /D "_LIB" /D "__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS" /D
"_VC80_UPGRADE=0x0710" /D
"_MBCS" /GF /Gm /EHsc /RTC1 /MDd /Fo"Win32\Debug\\"
/Fd"\bin\Win32\Debug\support.pdb
" /FR"Win32\Debug\\" /W3 /c /Zi /TP /wd4355 /wd4146 /wd4800
"..\..\lib\Support\Allocator.cpp" (bunch more .cpp files)
>From within the Support directory, "..\..\include" will pick up
"#include<llvm/Config/config.h>", but so will ".."
(..\llvm\config\config.h). This
seems highly suspect, to depend on the order of inclusion inside of VS.

I also don't quite get what you mean by the following:
> The file in the win32 directory is the config.h file that's ultimately
> used when compiling everything under VStudio.  That it implies that it
> concatenates is outdated information.  Ditto for the other .in files in
> configure.
>So they *should* be concatenated, or not? What's the outdated information
here? It seems offhand that they should be, but your prose above implies
that they shouldn't be.

Ultimately, it seems that the build script should be copying this config.h
(and other headers) to include/llvm/<directory>, rather than an llvm
directory inside of win32. Manually copying those files into the main
"include" directory seems to work, anyway, and the files that I had
there
before seemed to be the ones from the Cygwin build I ran earlier using
configure. (Perhaps there needs to be a "configure.bat" that does that
same
kinds of things?)

Moving onwards...

When trying to build System, then, I get the "Cannot find windows.h"
error
from DynamicLibrary.cpp. Insofar as I have a stock VS 2005 install, it's
right--windows.h isn't part of the standard VC/include directory; it's
tucked away in the "VC/PlatformSDK/include" directory, and the .sln
doesn't
seem to explicitly reference this (though it really shouldn't have to,
IIRC). When I add this to the project settings for System, it builds
cleanly.

I haven't gotten beyond this for the moment just because I want to get this
sent off and see what the responses are before I start hacking harder on the
project settings.

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Chuck Rose III
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio
> 2005?
> 
> >There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that
> it's
> >supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it
> doesn't
> >seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I
missing a
> >pre-build step someplace?
> 
> When config.h.in is hit in the build of configure the configure
> project,
> the configure.h file from the win32 directory is copied to main
> llvm\Config\Config.h.  The script in the sln file is:
> 
> copy "$(InputPath)"+"$(SolutionDir)config.h"
> "$(ProjectDir)..\llvm\Config\config.h"
> 
> configured as a custom build step in the solution file.  Is that not
> firing from the command line compilation of the sln?
> 
> The file in the win32 directory is the config.h file that's ultimately
> used when compiling everything under VStudio.  That it implies that it
> concatenates is outdated information.  Ditto for the other .in files in
> configure.  We should probably be doing something more clever here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chuck.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Ted Neward
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:12 AM
> To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio
> 2005?
> 
> More on this:
> 
> Walking through the projects slowly:
> 
> (*) "Configure" builds with no problem.
> (*) "support" fails:
> 
> 
> C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32>msbuild llvm.sln /t:Build
> Microsoft (R) Build Engine Version 2.0.50727.1433
> [Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 2.0.50727.1433]
> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 2005. All rights reserved.
> 
> Build started 2/18/2008 12:07:45 AM.
> __________________________________________________
> Project "C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\llvm.sln" (Build
target(s)):
> 
> Target ValidateSolutionConfiguration:
>     Building solution configuration "Debug|Win32".
> Target Build:
>     Target Configure:
>         C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
> es\vcbuild.exe C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-
> 2.2\win32\Configure\Configure.vcproj
> "Config
> ure|Win32"
>     Target support:
>         C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
> es\vcbuild.exe
> C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\Support\Support.tmp_Debug_Win32.vc
> proj "Debug|Win32"
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(46): error C3861: 'isinf':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(47): error C3861: 'isinf':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(31): error C3861: 'isnan':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(32): error C3861: 'isnan':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>     Done building target "support" in project
"llvm.sln" -- FAILED.
> 
> 
> It looks like there's some kind of configuration that's failing
here,
> because for some reason IsInf.cpp thinks that my machine has isinf()
> defined, when in fact there isn't any. It seems that some #defines in
> config.h in include/llvm/Config are controlling this:
> 
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isinf function is found in <math.h> */
> #define HAVE_ISINF_IN_MATH_H 1
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <cmath> */
> /* #undef HAVE_ISNAN_IN_CMATH */
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <math.h> */
> #define HAVE_ISNAN_IN_MATH_H 1
> 
> 
> But I'm guessing that somehow this is supposed to be manipulated by the
> build process, not by hand. Am I wrong in this?
> 
> There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that
> it's
> supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it
> doesn't
> seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I missing a
> pre-build step someplace?
> 
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> http://www.tedneward.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Ted Neward
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:41 PM
> > To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > 2005?
> >
> > By the way, somebody (I think it was Chuck, but I don't remember
for
> > certain) was asking for the BuildLog.htm from building the llvm.sln
> > file
> > under VS 2005 SP1 for diagnostic purposes; right now the SLN is
> > configured
> > to produce a new BuildLog for each and every one of the projects
> inside
> > the
> > solution. I don't know who's responsible for this guy, but
that's
> > probably
> > not the best way to do this.
> >
> > Chuck (assuming it was you), would it not be easier for me to capture
> > the
> > full results of an "msbuild llvm.sln" from the console for
you?
> >
> > Ted Neward
> > Java, .NET, XML Services
> > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> > http://www.tedneward.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Chuck Rose III
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:52 AM
> > > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > >
> > > I have always built it with flex and bison installed, though I
> > believe
> > > Chris removed our last dependence on flex a little while back, so
> you
> > > may not need that.  I'm using bison 2.1 which I got from the
> > > getgnuwin32
> > > folks.  I imagine that if you have cygwin or the like, you
probably
> > > already have everything.
> > >
> > > You will need to have the executables in your path.
> > >
> > > I build with VisualStudio 2k5 Professional with VStudio SP1
> > installed.
> > > I typically work on Vista32 or Vista64, but have compiled on XP
as
> > > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know how up to date the LLVM docs related to Visual
Studio
> > > compilation are.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chuck.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:52 PM
> > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comment.
> > > I also tried for LLVM 2.2 but got the same compilation errors on
> > > VS2005.
> > > (I didn't modify anything before the compilation)
> > >
> > > I just wonder if I need bison and flex even just in the case of
> > > compiling them on VS2005 without changing anything because the
LLVM
> > doc
> > > says "If you plan to modify any .y or .l files, you will
need to
> have
> > > bison and/or flex installed where Visual Studio can find them.
> > > Otherwise, you do not need them and the pre-generated files that
> come
> > > with the source tree will be used."
> > >
> > > One of errors of mine is as follows:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > ...
> > > 7>llvmAsmParser.cpp
> > > 7>c1xx : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file:
> > > '.\llvmAsmParser.cpp': No such file or directory
> > > ...
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > where llvmAsmParser.cpp is related to Bison so I am compelled to
> feel
> > > to
> > > try installing flex/bison on my machine, anyway.
> > >
> > > Forgive my ignorance, could you briefly tell me about that?
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Seung
> > >
> > > ---- Original message ----
> > > >Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:59 -0800
> > > >From: "Chuck Rose III" <cfr at adobe.com>
> > > >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on
Visual
> > > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > > >To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at
cs.uiuc.edu>
> > > >
> > > >Hola Seung,
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if 2.1 in particular worked.  I updated the
2.2 win32
> > > >vstudio 2k5 files right before lockdown, so they should be
> building.
> > > >You will need appropriate versions of flex and bison
installed.  I
> > > used
> > > >the ones from getgnuwin32 on my machine.
> > > >
> > > >Good luck.
> > > >
> > > >Chuck.
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > >On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > > >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:05 PM
> > > >To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >Subject: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > > >2005?
> > > >
> > > >Hello all,
> > > >
> > > >Is there anyone has tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?
> > > >I did but not succeed due to some build errors.
> > > >I seem to remember I read somewhere on this list it's
compiled on
> > > VS2005
> > > >so I wonder...
> > > >Have a good night.
> > > >
> > > >Thx,
> > > >Seung
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date:
> > > 2/13/2008 9:41 AM
> > >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> > 2/17/2008
> > 2:39 PM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> > 2/17/2008 2:39 PM
> >
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> 2/17/2008
> 2:39 PM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date:
> 2/18/2008 5:50 AM
> 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 2/18/2008
5:50 AM

Ted Neward

2008-Feb-19 05:46 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

OK, a couple of things aren't parsing here.
> When config.h.in is hit in the build of configure the configure
> project,
> the configure.h file from the win32 directory is copied to main
> llvm\Config\Config.h.  The script in the sln file is:
>There is no "configure.h" file from the win32 directory; there is a
config.h, and it's 600 bytes long, compared to the 16k or so for the
config.h file in $LLVM-ROOT/include/llvm/Config. The contents are obviously
different, as well, since the one in $LLVM-ROOT/include/llvm/Config has the
LLVM_ON_UNIX #define set.

It didn't appear to be doing the copy even when building from within VS.
Using "vcbuild /clean" then "vcbuild" on the
Configure.vcproj file directly
seems to have forced the copy to take place. I can see the "1 file(s)
copied" output in the BuildLog.

Except it doesn’t. File date/time reveals that nothing's been done to it,
and opening it up confirms that the win32\config.h isn't appended.

For whatever reason, only by manually deleting the config.h file in the
llvm/include/Config directory can I get the project to re-gen that config.h
file. I'm not sure if this is a property of running the build from the
command-line (but I'm guessing it's not, since MSBuild is used
internally
inside VS), or if the file-copy is being prevented by something in my
environment (files are marked writable, I already checked).

I don't know if you need to be "more clever" here, since MSBuild
is fully
capable of doing what you're trying to get it to do--I have no idea why
those file copies appear to be failing. Can you double-check and make sure
they're working correctly on your machine? That way we know it's a
peculiarity of my setup and not something intrinsic inside the build script.

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Chuck Rose III
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio
> 2005?
> 
> >There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that
> it's
> >supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it
> doesn't
> >seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I
missing a
> >pre-build step someplace?
> 
> When config.h.in is hit in the build of configure the configure
> project,
> the configure.h file from the win32 directory is copied to main
> llvm\Config\Config.h.  The script in the sln file is:
> 
> copy "$(InputPath)"+"$(SolutionDir)config.h"
> "$(ProjectDir)..\llvm\Config\config.h"
> 
> configured as a custom build step in the solution file.  Is that not
> firing from the command line compilation of the sln?
> 
> The file in the win32 directory is the config.h file that's ultimately
> used when compiling everything under VStudio.  That it implies that it
> concatenates is outdated information.  Ditto for the other .in files in
> configure.  We should probably be doing something more clever here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chuck.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Ted Neward
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:12 AM
> To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio
> 2005?
> 
> More on this:
> 
> Walking through the projects slowly:
> 
> (*) "Configure" builds with no problem.
> (*) "support" fails:
> 
> 
> C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32>msbuild llvm.sln /t:Build
> Microsoft (R) Build Engine Version 2.0.50727.1433
> [Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 2.0.50727.1433]
> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 2005. All rights reserved.
> 
> Build started 2/18/2008 12:07:45 AM.
> __________________________________________________
> Project "C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\llvm.sln" (Build
target(s)):
> 
> Target ValidateSolutionConfiguration:
>     Building solution configuration "Debug|Win32".
> Target Build:
>     Target Configure:
>         C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
> es\vcbuild.exe C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-
> 2.2\win32\Configure\Configure.vcproj
> "Config
> ure|Win32"
>     Target support:
>         C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\Common7\IDE\..\..\vc\vcpackag
> es\vcbuild.exe
> C:\Prg\llvm-2.2\llvm-2.2\win32\Support\Support.tmp_Debug_Win32.vc
> proj "Debug|Win32"
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(46): error C3861: 'isinf':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsInf.cpp(47): error C3861: 'isinf':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(31): error C3861: 'isnan':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>         ..\..\lib\Support\IsNAN.cpp(32): error C3861: 'isnan':
> identifier
> not fo
> und
>     Done building target "support" in project
"llvm.sln" -- FAILED.
> 
> 
> It looks like there's some kind of configuration that's failing
here,
> because for some reason IsInf.cpp thinks that my machine has isinf()
> defined, when in fact there isn't any. It seems that some #defines in
> config.h in include/llvm/Config are controlling this:
> 
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isinf function is found in <math.h> */
> #define HAVE_ISINF_IN_MATH_H 1
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <cmath> */
> /* #undef HAVE_ISNAN_IN_CMATH */
> 
> /* Set to 1 if the isnan function is found in <math.h> */
> #define HAVE_ISNAN_IN_MATH_H 1
> 
> 
> But I'm guessing that somehow this is supposed to be manipulated by the
> build process, not by hand. Am I wrong in this?
> 
> There's a config.h file in the win32 subdirectory that implies that
> it's
> supposed to be concatenated as part of the build process, but it
> doesn't
> seem like that's happening from within the .sln script--am I missing a
> pre-build step someplace?
> 
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> http://www.tedneward.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Ted Neward
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:41 PM
> > To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > 2005?
> >
> > By the way, somebody (I think it was Chuck, but I don't remember
for
> > certain) was asking for the BuildLog.htm from building the llvm.sln
> > file
> > under VS 2005 SP1 for diagnostic purposes; right now the SLN is
> > configured
> > to produce a new BuildLog for each and every one of the projects
> inside
> > the
> > solution. I don't know who's responsible for this guy, but
that's
> > probably
> > not the best way to do this.
> >
> > Chuck (assuming it was you), would it not be easier for me to capture
> > the
> > full results of an "msbuild llvm.sln" from the console for
you?
> >
> > Ted Neward
> > Java, .NET, XML Services
> > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> > http://www.tedneward.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Chuck Rose III
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:52 AM
> > > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > >
> > > I have always built it with flex and bison installed, though I
> > believe
> > > Chris removed our last dependence on flex a little while back, so
> you
> > > may not need that.  I'm using bison 2.1 which I got from the
> > > getgnuwin32
> > > folks.  I imagine that if you have cygwin or the like, you
probably
> > > already have everything.
> > >
> > > You will need to have the executables in your path.
> > >
> > > I build with VisualStudio 2k5 Professional with VStudio SP1
> > installed.
> > > I typically work on Vista32 or Vista64, but have compiled on XP
as
> > > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know how up to date the LLVM docs related to Visual
Studio
> > > compilation are.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chuck.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:52 PM
> > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comment.
> > > I also tried for LLVM 2.2 but got the same compilation errors on
> > > VS2005.
> > > (I didn't modify anything before the compilation)
> > >
> > > I just wonder if I need bison and flex even just in the case of
> > > compiling them on VS2005 without changing anything because the
LLVM
> > doc
> > > says "If you plan to modify any .y or .l files, you will
need to
> have
> > > bison and/or flex installed where Visual Studio can find them.
> > > Otherwise, you do not need them and the pre-generated files that
> come
> > > with the source tree will be used."
> > >
> > > One of errors of mine is as follows:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > ...
> > > 7>llvmAsmParser.cpp
> > > 7>c1xx : fatal error C1083: Cannot open source file:
> > > '.\llvmAsmParser.cpp': No such file or directory
> > > ...
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > where llvmAsmParser.cpp is related to Bison so I am compelled to
> feel
> > > to
> > > try installing flex/bison on my machine, anyway.
> > >
> > > Forgive my ignorance, could you briefly tell me about that?
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Seung
> > >
> > > ---- Original message ----
> > > >Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:59 -0800
> > > >From: "Chuck Rose III" <cfr at adobe.com>
> > > >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on
Visual
> > > Studio
> > > 2005?
> > > >To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at
cs.uiuc.edu>
> > > >
> > > >Hola Seung,
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if 2.1 in particular worked.  I updated the
2.2 win32
> > > >vstudio 2k5 files right before lockdown, so they should be
> building.
> > > >You will need appropriate versions of flex and bison
installed.  I
> > > used
> > > >the ones from getgnuwin32 on my machine.
> > > >
> > > >Good luck.
> > > >
> > > >Chuck.
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-
> > bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> > > >On Behalf Of Seung Jae Lee
> > > >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:05 PM
> > > >To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >Subject: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual
> Studio
> > > >2005?
> > > >
> > > >Hello all,
> > > >
> > > >Is there anyone has tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?
> > > >I did but not succeed due to some build errors.
> > > >I seem to remember I read somewhere on this list it's
compiled on
> > > VS2005
> > > >so I wonder...
> > > >Have a good night.
> > > >
> > > >Thx,
> > > >Seung
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > >http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date:
> > > 2/13/2008 9:41 AM
> > >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> > 2/17/2008
> > 2:39 PM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> > 2/17/2008 2:39 PM
> >
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date:
> 2/17/2008
> 2:39 PM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date:
> 2/18/2008 5:50 AM
> 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 2/18/2008
5:50 AM

Barry Kelly

2008-Feb-19 16:31 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

> For whatever reason, only by manually deleting the config.h file in the
> llvm/include/Config directory can I get the project to re-gen that config.h
> file. I'm not sure if this is a property of running the build from the
> command-line (but I'm guessing it's not, since MSBuild is used
internally
> inside VS), or if the file-copy is being prevented by something in my
> environment (files are marked writable, I already checked).
The MSBuild infrastructure isn't used by VS 2005 for C++ projects;
rather, VCBuild does the work. I'm not sure about VS 2008.

FWIW, I used ProcMon to diagnose file-handling issues I had in my build:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx

-- Barry

-- 
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Feb 2008 - [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

[LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005?

Seemingly Similar Threads