Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "000006e8".
Did you mean:
000000e8
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...gt; -00000663 l O .rodata 0000000e __FUNCTION__.20299
> -000006a0 l O .rodata 00000020 __FUNCTION__.20223
> -00000671 l O .rodata 00000019 __FUNCTION__.20731
> -000006c0 l O .rodata 00000018 __FUNCTION__.20111
> -000006d8 l O .rodata 00000010 __FUNCTION__.22492
> -000006e8 l O .rodata 00000016 __FUNCTION__.22568
> +0000064f l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.20622
> +00000663 l O .rodata 0000000e __FUNCTION__.20214
> +000006a0 l O .rodata 00000020 __FUNCTION__.20138
> +00000671 l O .rodata 00000019 __FUNCTION__.20645
> +000006c0 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