search for: 016490

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "016490".

Did you mean: 516490
2008 Oct 31
5
[LLVMdev] gfortran link failure in current llvm svn
Chris and Bill, I have tested the proposed patch from... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that patch in before 2.4 is release? Jack ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm svn. I find everytime I compile something...
2008 Oct 31
0
[LLVMdev] gfortran link failure in current llvm svn
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > Chris and Bill, > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran > from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that > patch in before 2.4 is release? I applied it to mainline. > ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm > s...
2008 Oct 31
1
[LLVMdev] gfortran link failure in current llvm svn
...30, 2008 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > > Chris and Bill, > > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran > > from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that > > patch in before 2.4 is release? > > I applied it to mainline. > > > ps We do have one oddity left i...