search for: brokengcc

Hi, The link "Broken versions of GCC and other tools" on http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html points to #brokengcc, where it should point to http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc I guess. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

...tible tool configured, and carp if it finds one? > > Probably be a good idea. It's reasonably easy to check major/minor > versions. Its not just a matter of checking major/minor versions. It also depends on the target and in some cases the OS. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc So for example, GCC 3.3.3 on Suse or GCC 3.4.0 on linux/x86 (32-bit) has issues. Is it easy to check these kinds of things? Do we even want to? I guess it could be done for things like 4.1.1 or a couple of others on the list. -Tanya

Compilation error output is attached. Seems that G++ 3.4.5 fails to pick the right specialization version of getExprLocImpl() function in lib/AST/Expr.cpp. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: error URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110211/4a248936/attachment.ksh>

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:48 AM, Lian Cheng wrote: > Compilation error output is attached. > > Seems that G++ 3.4.5 fails to pick the right specialization version of getExprLocImpl() function in lib/AST/Expr.cpp. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110211/ffa764d2/attachment.html>

...little while hunting this particular bug, and it acted very > much like a compiler bug. I never narrowed it down to a test case, > though. Is there a gcc bug for this testcase? I'd like to understand better exactly what the issue is. Looking at http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc here's the current recommendation: We routinely use GCC 3.3.3, 3.4.0, and Apple 4.0.1 successfully with them (however, see important notes below). Is this really still true? Is there a later version of gcc that's recommended? 3.4.x is ancient. Does the page need an update? Wha...

Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:27 -0700 schrieb Shantonu Sen: > llvm's ./configure already does that for gcc < 3. > > What are valid versions? Exactly 4.0 and 4.2? 4.0 and >=4.2? There's a list at http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc so there is a reasonable basis. The list isn't comprehensive, of course, and will likely grow in the future. OTOH extending it as new problems come up should be easy to do. > dnl Verify that GCC is version 3.0 or higher > if test "$GCC" = "yes" > then > AC_CO...

llvm's ./configure already does that for gcc < 3. What are valid versions? Exactly 4.0 and 4.2? 4.0 and >=4.2? dnl Verify that GCC is version 3.0 or higher if test "$GCC" = "yes" then AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([[#if !defined(__GNUC__) || __GNUC__ < 3 #error Unsupported GCC version #endif ]], [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gcc 3.x required, but you have a lower version])]) fi

...t;mailtome200420032002 at yahoo.com> wrote: > I am trying to build llvm-2.7 using non-system gcc/binutils. My gcc version is 4.1.2, and binutils is 2.17.50.0.15. I get the following errors That version of gcc is known to have issues building LLVM; see http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc . Try upgrading your gcc version. -Eli > `.L2438' referenced in section `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNK4llvm16DAGTypeLegalizer13getTypeActionENS_3EVTE' of /build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/Release/lib/libLLVMSelectionDAG.a(LegalizeTypes.o): defined in discarded section `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4...

...he commit r145975, "First chunk >> of MachineInstr bundle support." on 12/6/2011. I've verified that the >> tests pass with commit r145974. >> >> The build is running on a CentOS 5.6 machine with gcc version 4.1.2. > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc > > -Eli It's strange that this had been working up until commit r145975, then. Any idea what that commit would have changed to break the tests again? Brendan

I am trying to build llvm-2.7 using non-system gcc/binutils. My gcc version is 4.1.2, and binutils is 2.17.50.0.15. I get the following errors `.L2438' referenced in section `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNK4llvm16DAGTypeLegalizer13getTypeActionENS_3EVTE' of /build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/Release/lib/libLLVMSelectionDAG.a(LegalizeTypes.o): defined in discarded section

...work for me in > situations where 2.3 seems fine. The current trunk code appears to have > the same problem. > Value still in symbol table! Type = 'i32' Name = 'tmp3.3' It seems, that you're using gcc, which is known to be broken http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi, > gcc: gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33) most likely the version of gcc you are using is broken. See http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Ciao, Duncan.

...some progress. The latest from svn (for llvm and > llvm-gcc) built successfully. I built everything without adjusting the > PATH, so I guess I used gcc 4.1.2. Even if you'll succeed, most probably LLVM will be miscompiled. gcc 4.1.2 is known buggy: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc --- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

I am running this version of gcc: $ gcc --version i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5465) >From here: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc "We routinely use GCC 3.3.3, 3.4.0, and Apple 4.0.1 successfully with them (however, see important notes below)." I'm not sure what the "important notes below" are for gcc 4.0.1 as none of the notes I saw below seemed relevant to 4.0.1. So my example (posted previously) i...

Hi, The gcc version in my system is 3.4.6 During make display error message and stop cc1plus:error: unrecognzied command line option -Wno-variadic-macros Must i update gcc to version 4.2.0 or above to resolve the problem? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...-Wno-variadic-macros > > Must i update gcc to version 4.2.0 or above to resolve the problem? That is a sign that your native GCC is not new enough, upgrading to 4.2 or later should resolve the problem, but be aware of known-broken versions of GCC: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -Chris

I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070303/c5da364e/attachment.html>

> I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 > and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? The fine documentation says: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

>> I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 >> and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? > > The fine documentation says: > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Yes. But what version is recomended and tested ? Any post 4.1.1 ? Aaron

Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:44 -0700 schrieb Tanya M. Lattner: > Its not just a matter of checking major/minor versions. It also depends on > the target and in some cases the OS. > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc > > So for example, GCC 3.3.3 on Suse or GCC 3.4.0 on linux/x86 > (32-bit) has issues. Is it easy to check these kinds of things? uname identifies arch. /etc/lsb-release identifies Linux distribution; I'm not sure how to identify Apple and Cygwin. $prog --version gives a version s...