Hi Matthijs,>> I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. > I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even > without the fix Mike suggested). > > So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? > > I didn't test bootstrap, however, but it was failing without bootstrap as well > previously. I won't have time to try bootstrap in the next two weeks, though > (I won't be at work). >If you're comfortable with taking it out, I'd love to remove it. :-) I'll go ahead and revert it. Please do a bootstrap test of it when you get a chance just as a sanity check. Thanks! -bw
I've just tried building r54494 on 64bit linux and had the same (no include path) error. Any idea what's happening here? Thanks, -David Shipman On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Matthijs, > >>> I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >>> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. >> I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even >> without the fix Mike suggested). >> >> So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? >> >> I didn't test bootstrap, however, but it was failing without bootstrap as well >> previously. I won't have time to try bootstrap in the next two weeks, though >> (I won't be at work). >> > If you're comfortable with taking it out, I'd love to remove it. :-) > I'll go ahead and revert it. Please do a bootstrap test of it when you > get a chance just as a sanity check. > > Thanks! > -bw > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Shipman <dshipman at gmail.com> wrote:> I've just tried building r54494 on 64bit linux and had the same (no > include path) > error. Any idea what's happening here? >No. :-( Could you try Mike's suggestion? (Replicated here) Try adding: #define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ to limitx.h like so: #ifdef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H +#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ #include_next <limits.h> #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H and then testing. A good test would do a -dM -E and seeing if everything is still defined and checking the testcase mentioned in the original email thread.