Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "000005c1".
Did you mean:
0000051
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...11 __FUNCTION__.22845
> 00000020 l O .bss 000000d4 static_reg_base_value
> 0000010c l O .bss 00000001 memory_modified.b
> 00003f00 l F .text 0000005b memory_modified_1
> 0000000c l O .bss 00000004 old_reg_base_value
> 000005d5 l O .rodata 0000000f .str8
> -000005c1 l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.23098
> -000005e4 l O .rodata 00000017 __FUNCTION__.22989
> +000005c1 l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.23005
> +000005e4 l O .rodata 00000017 __FUNCTION__.22896
> 00004e90 l F .text 000003ca write_dependence_p
> -0000060f 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