Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "dcmake_module_linker_flag".
Did you mean:
dcmake_module_linker_flags
2016 Oct 04
4
(Thin)LTO llvm build
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>
> Aha - finally reproduced! The difference is using ld.bfd not
> ld.gold. With that I get the same failure (using 3.9 to build 3.9
> sources):
Thanks a lot!
[...]
> I am not sure what the official support story is for LLVMgold.so and
> ld.bfd. As mentioned earlier, the LLVM site indicates
2016 Oct 04
0
(Thin)LTO llvm build
..., Oct 4, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > For clang build, cmake flags:
> >
> > -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS=-fuse-ld=gold \
> > -DCMAKE_MODULE_LINKER_FLAGS=-fuse-ld=gold \
> > -DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS=-fuse-ld=gold \
>
> Thanks, this didn't break the cmake run.
>
> I've been successfully using LDFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS.
> It works, but now I wonder if it's safer to pass those via a
> -DCMAKE_CXXFLAGS....
2017 Oct 14
2
darwin bootstrap failure
...=/ -DCMAKE_OSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET:STRING=
-DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86;PowerPC;ARM
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/sw/opt/llvm-6.0
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=Release -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS=-fno-common
-DLLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=-fno-common
-DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS= -L/sw/lib -DCMAKE_MODULE_LINKER_FLAGS=
-L/sw/lib -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS= -L/sw/lib
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jack Howarth <
> howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jac...
2016 Dec 20
0
(Thin)LTO llvm build
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 5:49 AM, Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Teresa.
>
> Looks like I had forgotten to report back with success
> when finally building 3.9.0 in ThinLTO linker mode
> back in October. Sorry about that and thanks for
> helping me out. I know how important it is to get
> success reports as well, as a
2017 Oct 14
2
darwin bootstrap failure
...G=
>> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86;PowerPC;ARM -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/sw/opt/llvm-6.0
>> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=Release -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS=-fno-common
>> -DLLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=-fno-common
>> -DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS= -L/sw/lib -DCMAKE_MODULE_LINKER_FLAGS=
>> -L/sw/lib -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS= -L/sw/lib
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jack Howarth <
>>> howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Don...
2017 Jan 19
2
undefined symbols during linking LLDB 4.0 RC1
...VM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86"
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
-DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=/usr/bin/clang
-DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=/usr/bin/clang++
-DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
-DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
-DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
-DCMAKE_MODULE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
-DLLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX=ON
-DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=64
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr
-DLLDB_DISABLE_PYTHON=1
-DTARGET_TRIPLE="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
-DLIBCXX_INSTALL_EXPERIMENTAL_LIBRARY=ON
-DLLVM_ENABLE_LLD=ON
List of undefined symbols and invocation is next:
[...
2017 Jan 23
2
undefined symbols during linking LLDB 4.0 RC1
..._TYPE=Release
>> -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=/usr/bin/clang
>> -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=/usr/bin/clang++
>> -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
>> -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
>> -DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
>> -DCMAKE_MODULE_LINKER_FLAGS="-lc++abi -lc++"
>> -DLLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX=ON
>> -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=64
>> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr
>> -DLLDB_DISABLE_PYTHON=1
>> -DTARGET_TRIPLE="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
>> -DLIBCXX_INSTALL_EXPERIMENTAL_LIBRARY=ON
>> -DLLVM_ENABLE_LLD=O...
2017 Oct 14
2
darwin bootstrap failure
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jack:
>
> Yes, I was just looking at that. Seems like TableGen wasn't done along
> with the rest of llvm. I'll work up a complete patch shortly.
>
> Btw, I'm curious how this happened. Do you have a stale CMakeCache.txt by
> any chance? You might check the value for