Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "00002560".
Did you mean:
0.002560
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
..._alias_check
> 00001cb0 l F .text 0000009d addr_side_effect_eval
> 00001d50 l F .text 00000728 memrefs_conflict_p
> -0000045f l O .rodata 00000010 __FUNCTION__.21736
> +0000045f l O .rodata 00000010 __FUNCTION__.21649
> 0000046f l O .rodata 0000000f .str3
> 00002560 l F .text 000001ad fixed_scalar_and_varying_struct_p
> -00000480 l O .rodata 00000022 __FUNCTION__.21766
> +00000480 l O .rodata 00000022 __FUNCTION__.21679
> 000004a2 l O .rodata 0000000d .str4
> 000004af l O .rodata 00000010 .str5
> 00002710 l F .text 000...
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