search for: cxx0x

...rning: argument unused during compilation: '-nostdinc++' > Building CXX object lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/IntrusiveRefCntPtr.cpp.o > clang-3: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-stdlib=libc++' Is that expected? I'm using both -stdlib=libc++ and -std=cxx0x. I dont see them when I used just -stdlib=libc++ flag. Thanks, Ashok On 6/26/2012 1:30 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-06-26 04:22, Ashok Nalkund wrote: > ... >>> /local/mnt/workspace/ashoknn/519_libcxx_transition/llvm/src/tools/bugpoint/ToolRunner.cpp:131:12: error: invalid...

On 2012-06-26 04:22, Ashok Nalkund wrote: ... >> /local/mnt/workspace/ashoknn/519_libcxx_transition/llvm/src/tools/bugpoint/ToolRunner.cpp:131:12: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('llvm::raw_ostream' and 'std::ostringstream' >> (aka 'basic_ostringstream<char>')) >> errs() << OS; >> ~~~~~~ ^ ~~ > Hi Ashok,

Hi All, I'm using LLVM/Clang 3.1 release. I first compiled llvm/clang using GCC per the instructions on the web with cmake. I then compiled libc++ per the instructions on the web. I then tried to compile llvm/clang with previously compiled clang and libc++ using "-std=c++0x -stdlib=libc++" flags. But the compilation fails at: > [ 58%] Building CXX object

...kes the error disappered, chandlerc think it's not the correct solution. Perhaps it's test bug not clang's. Clang :: CXX/special/class.copy/p15-inclass.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/compound-literals.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/copy-constructor-elim-2.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-references.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist-startend.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/virt-call-offsets.cpp Clang :: CodeGenCXX/x86-64-abi-sret-vs-2word-struct-param.cpp Use "-triple x86_64-none-linux-gnu" makes above failures disappered....

On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, 陳韋任 wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I forgot to do Phase2/Phase3 build. Here is the Phase3 regression test > result, > > http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj/tmp/phase3-regression-test.txt > > Most LLVM failures are gone. As for ExecutionEngine, I guess ARM JIT is > not at a good shape at this moment, right? Perhaps we should focus on Clang >

>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >> 3.1 > > Makes perfect sense to me. > > -Chris According to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, these features are available from 4.6 (language features only): - Null pointer constant - Forward declarations for enums - Generalized constant expressions - Unrestricted unions - Range-based for - Defining move special member functions - Allowing move constructors to throw Eli

Le mardi 27 mars 2012 à 14:36 -0700, Bill Wendling a écrit : > IMPORTANT! IMPORTANT! IMPORTANT! > [...] > By the way, we are looking for ARM testers. There was a lot of interest in the 3.0 release for an ARM release. We will try to do one this release on a trial basis. We are looking for ARMv7 cortex-a8 and cortex-a9 on Linux. If you are interested, I can upload the current trunk

Update: > Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp > > Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++ ABI, but I leave it to > James to comment. Use "-triple x86_64-none-linux-gnu" makes this test pass. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute...

...;>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >>> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >>> 3.1 >> >> Makes perfect sense to me. >> >> -Chris > > According to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, these features > are available from 4.6 (language features only): > > - Null pointer constant This is the only one fully supported by VS 2010. > - Forward declarations for enums This is partially supported. I don't know the exact extent. > - Generalized constant expres...

IMPORTANT! IMPORTANT! IMPORTANT! We will be branching for the 3.1 release on April 16th! :-) This gives us a little over two weeks to get the trees into the most stable condition we can. What this means for you: All major features for the 3.1 release should be finished or near completion by the April 16th. After April 16th, we will accept only bug fixes and patches which do not change the

...ng : : CodeGen/2003-08-17-DeadCodeShortCircuit.c Clang : : CodeGen/2004-06-17-UnorderedBuiltins.c Clang : : CodeGen/bitfield-promote.c Clang : : CodeGenCXX/2005-02-19-UnnamedVirtualThunkArgument.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/conditional-expr-lvalue.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-delegating-ctors.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/expr.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/nrvo.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/throw-expressions.cpp Clang : : CodeGenCXX/vtable-debug-info.cpp Clang : : CodeGenObjC/arc-ivar-layout.m Clang : : CodeGenObjC/debug-info-class-extension.m...

Hi Wei-Ren Chen, Thanks for the reports. Could you ask on the cfe-dev list if adding these flags to the tests are appropriate to fix the issues? -bw On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:35 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > Update: > >> Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp >> >> Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++ ABI, but I leave it to >> James to comment. > > Use "-triple x86_64-none-linux-gnu" makes this test pass. > > Regards, > chenwj > > -- > W...

>> Does that seem reasonable - or at least acceptable - for everyone? > > > My only concern is the GCC version. If we bump up to 4.5 (which eliminates > the current crop of "enterprise" Linux distros on 4.4), why not set it at > 4.6, which is the default on reasonably current LTS distros like Ubuntu > 12.04? > I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by

On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: >>> Does that seem reasonable - or at least acceptable - for everyone? >> >> >> My only concern is the GCC version. If we bump up to 4.5 (which eliminates >> the current crop of "enterprise" Linux distros on 4.4), why not set it at >> 4.6, which is the default on

...vior to be that argument. IOC adds the -ftrapv checks to -fcatch-undefined-behavior (unless we're in -fwrapv mode), so we can easily pick up that part of this change. > > IOC also adds: > -fcatch-undefined-ansic-behavior > -fcatch-undefined-c99-behavior > -fcatch-undefined-cxx0x-behavior > -fcatch-undefined-cxx98-behavior > -fcatch-undefined-nonarith-behavior > > I think we should support this kind of configuration through a mechanism similar to warning flags: -fcatch-undefined-behavior=c++11 -fno-catch-undefined-behavior=null-reference, for instance. >...

...eoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >>>> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >>>> 3.1 >>> >>> Makes perfect sense to me. >>> >>> -Chris >> >> According to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, these features >> are available from 4.6 (language features only): >> >> - Null pointer constant > > This is the only one fully supported by VS 2010. > >> - Forward declarations for enums > > This is partially supported. I don't know the exact extent...

Hi, I am trying to build llvm 3.4.2 on Centos 6.6. I am getting this below build error , while building the libcxx. I followed the build procedure based of http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html. I cannot move to a higher version, Since we need to develop on CentOS 6.6 and LLVM 3.4.2 ,is the last version that supports gcc 3.4.2. Starting from LLVM 3.5.0, there has been a huge jump to gcc 4.7.0.

Dear testers, 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if there are any issues. I'll upload sources, docs, and your binaries to the pre-release website once they're ready. Thanks, Hans