Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "0000032e".
Did you mean:
00000320
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...f8 l O .bss 00000001 copying_arguments.b
> 000000fc l O .bss 00000004 new_reg_base_value
> 000000f4 l O .bss 00000004 reg_base_value
> -0000040c l O .rodata 00000010 __FUNCTION__.20810
> +0000040c l O .rodata 00000010 __FUNCTION__.20724
> 00000c60 l F .text 0000032e record_set
> 00000100 l O .bss 00000004 reg_seen
> 00000104 l O .bss 00000004 unique_id
> -0000041c l O .rodata 0000000b __FUNCTION__.20952
> -00000427 l O .rodata 00000012 __FUNCTION__.21033
> +0000041c l O .rodata 0000000b __FUNCTION__.20866
> +00000427 l...
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues.
I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
(Are the above two ok?)
The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in
the