On 2009-11-16 21:53, David Greene wrote:> On Monday 16 November 2009 13:04, John Criswell wrote: > >>> [snip] >>> >>> I applied the attached patch to make it compile on my box (Debian >>> x86_64), only to find out that x86_64 is not supported :( >>> This architecture is not supported by the pool allocator! >>> Aborted >>> >> Thanks for the patch. What options do I give to the patch command to >> apply it to the source code? >> > > Did I miss a message? I am getting tons of compiler errors building poolalloc > and safecode and am wondering if this patch would fix things. >My initial message (containing the patch) was a private reply to John. Attached the patch again, it applies with 'patch -p0'. Also try to build on x86-32, x86-64 is not quite ready yet. Best regards, --Edwin -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091116/4ea0e342/attachment.ksh>
Török Edwin wrote:> On 2009-11-16 21:53, David Greene wrote: > >> On Monday 16 November 2009 13:04, John Criswell wrote: >> >> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> I applied the attached patch to make it compile on my box (Debian >>>> x86_64), only to find out that x86_64 is not supported :( >>>> This architecture is not supported by the pool allocator! >>>> Aborted >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks for the patch. What options do I give to the patch command to >>> apply it to the source code? >>> >>> >> Did I miss a message? I am getting tons of compiler errors building poolalloc >> and safecode and am wondering if this patch would fix things. >> >> > > My initial message (containing the patch) was a private reply to John. > > Attached the patch again, it applies with 'patch -p0'. > > Also try to build on x86-32, x86-64 is not quite ready yet. >Patch applied. Thanks! -- John T.> Best regards, > --Edwin >
[snip]> > My initial message (containing the patch) was a private reply to John. > > Attached the patch again, it applies with 'patch -p0'. > > Also try to build on x86-32, x86-64 is not quite ready yet. >Actually, I made one small change to the patch. I kept -Werror in Makefile.common.in. It's better if we fix these warnings; -Werror provides incentive for that. I'll consider removing it if there's a problem that's not trivially fixable. -- John T.> Best regards, > --Edwin >
On 2009-11-16 22:46, John Criswell wrote:> [snip] >> >> My initial message (containing the patch) was a private reply to John. >> >> Attached the patch again, it applies with 'patch -p0'. >> >> Also try to build on x86-32, x86-64 is not quite ready yet. >> > Actually, I made one small change to the patch. I kept -Werror in > Makefile.common.in. It's better if we fix these warnings; -Werror > provides incentive for that. > > I'll consider removing it if there's a problem that's not trivially > fixable.That leaves us with the aliasing violations. I looked at the first, and I couldn't tell why gcc (4.3.4) thinks it is wrong: safecode/runtime/BitmapPoolAllocator/PoolAllocatorBitMask.cpp:185: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules Line 185 is: PS->addToList((PoolSlab**)&Pool->Ptr2); and Ptr2 is a field of type void*. Isn't void* compatible with anything? Best regards, --Edwin -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: log URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091116/f78c1992/attachment.ksh>