search for: have_cxx_atomics_without_lib

...++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. > > Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? You shouldn't need it on x86-64. The issue there is that cmake is reporting, incorrectly: -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed despite that previously in the same run, the same test configuring llvm itself worked: -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success I suspect that the flags change has some...

...kely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to > mis-configuring -latomic. > > > > Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? > > You shouldn't need it on x86-64. The issue there is that cmake is > reporting, incorrectly: > -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed > > despite that previously in the same run, the same test configuring llvm > itself worked: > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success > > I...

...our various platforms. >> >> Please run the test script, share the results, and upload binaries. > > Hmm, I'm running into a rather nasty snag now on i386-freebsd11, due to our lack of atomic 64 bit primitives; Phase2's configure dies with: > > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB > -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB - Failed > -- Looking for __atomic_load_8 in atomic > -- Looking for __atomic_load_8 in atomic - not...

So it seems that libatomic went missing between build #1379 and #1380, so I don't think this is related to the -std=c++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Dear testers, 7.0.0-rc1 was just tagged (from the branch at r338847). It's early in the release process, but I'd like to find out what the status is of the branch on our various platforms. Please run the test script, share the results, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

...ure time. LLVM’s flags impacting libcxx is fixed by my runtimes proposal. In fact, that’s part of the point. Bleeding options from LLVM & Clang builds into runtime libraries is not cool. It causes lots of problems on Darwin, so we’re sensitive to this. > To get cmake to work, I have to set HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB, even though I have no intention of building LLVM. I then get to set LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB too, because reasons. This is bad. I’m curious why you need to set those ever. Have you diagnosed this? For you to need to set that it means the host toolchain isn’t properly passing the CMake...

...oking for __GLIBC__ -- Looking for __GLIBC__ - found -- Performing Test HAVE_INT64_T -- Performing Test HAVE_INT64_T - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_UINT64_T -- Performing Test HAVE_UINT64_T - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_U_INT64_T -- Performing Test HAVE_U_INT64_T - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success -- Performing Test SUPPORTS_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS_FLAG -- Performing Test SUPPORTS_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS_FLAG - Success -- Performing Test HAS_MAYBE_UNINITIALIZED --...

Hallo all, I was trying to Build LLVM with the cmake option LLVM_ENABLE_MODULES just out of curiosity. I used the RELEASE_400/final tag. It didn't work as I almost expected. So I'm wondering if the modulemaps aren't maintained anymore? If they aren't maintained anymore, why aren't they removed and that cmake option also removed?

...Looking for pthread_getname_np - found -- Looking for pthread_setname_np -- Looking for pthread_setname_np - found -- Looking for ffi_call -- Looking for ffi_call - found -- Performing Test HAVE_STD_IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE -- Performing Test HAVE_STD_IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE - Failed -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success -- Performing Test SUPPORTS_VARIADIC_MACROS_FLAG...

...his approach has some benefits, but also has added complication because some of the libSupport functionality in use is non-trivial. Thoughts? -Chris > On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Craig, Ben <ben.craig at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > >>> To get cmake to work, I have to set HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB, even though I have no intention of building LLVM. I then get to set LIBCXX_HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB too, because reasons. >> This is bad. I’m curious why you need to set those ever. Have you diagnosed this? For you to need to set that it means the host toolchain isn’t properly passing t...

...sched_getaffinity -- Looking for sched_getaffinity -not found -- Looking for CPU_COUNT -- Looking for CPU_COUNT - notfound -- Looking for pthread_getname_np -- Looking for pthread_getname_np -found -- Looking for pthread_setname_np -- Looking for pthread_setname_np -found -- Performing TestHAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing TestHAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing TestHAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB- Success -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS- Success -- Performing TestSUPPORTS_VARIADIC_MACROS_FLAG...

...Looking for pthread_getname_np - found -- Looking for pthread_setname_np -- Looking for pthread_setname_np - found -- Looking for ffi_call -- Looking for ffi_call - found -- Performing Test HAVE_STD_IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE -- Performing Test HAVE_STD_IS_TRIVIALLY_COPYABLE - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB -- Performing Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB - Success -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success -- Performing Test SUPPORTS_VARIADIC_MACROS_FLAG...

I had only a quick view on the blog-texts. It might be that a CLANG generated with LTO/PGO speeds up the build. Can you confirm this? Can you confirm binutils-gold speed up the build? Has LLVM an own linker? Can be used? Speedup the build? Yesterday night I loooked through available CMAKE/LLVM variables... ### GOLD # CMAKE_LINKER:FILEPATH=/usr/bin/ld #

Hello, Le 12/12/2016 à 18:29, Hans Wennborg a écrit : > +Sylvestre who knows about these things. > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Kris van Rens via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> L.S., >> >> I'm currently in the process of creating Debian packages for >> clang/llvm release 3.9.0. For this I'm using the steps as explained on

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: [ brutal-snip ] ... > [ TODO#S: Before doing a 2nd build (and in a 3rd run using more > optimized binaries) ] > > How do I anable LTO via CMAKE? > > > LLVM_ENALBLE_LTO=On > [ v4 of my build-script attached ] Hi Chris, thanks for the response! That seems to work (see below). $ cd

Trying to run a self host "ninja check-clang" with ASan enabled I hit a /lot/ of errors like this (strangely I hit none of these in check-llvm, only in check-clang): Any ideas? ==10525==ERROR: AddressSanitizer failed to deallocate 0x10800 (67584) bytes at address 0x631000014800 ==10525==AddressSanitizer CHECK failed:

...ve symbol __i386__ HAS_i386_DEF:INTERNAL=1 //Have symbol __i686__ HAS_i686_DEF:INTERNAL= //Have symbol backtrace HAVE_BACKTRACE:INTERNAL=1 //Have include CrashReporterClient.h HAVE_CRASHREPORTERCLIENT_H:INTERNAL= //Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS64_WITHOUT_LIB:INTERNAL=1 //Test HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB HAVE_CXX_ATOMICS_WITHOUT_LIB:INTERNAL=1 //Have symbol arc4random HAVE_DECL_ARC4RANDOM:INTERNAL= //Have symbol FE_ALL_EXCEPT HAVE_DECL_FE_ALL_EXCEPT:INTERNAL=1 //Have symbol FE_INEXACT HAVE_DECL_FE_INEXACT:INTERNAL=1 //Have symbol strerror_s HAVE_DECL_STRERROR_S:INTERNAL= //Have include dirent.h HAV...

Moving to llvm-dev (I think this has gone a bit further than a patch review discussion) In hindsight I probably should have explained more of my thinking on this with the patch, or done an RFC on llvm-dev to start with. I’l do that now, and answer the questions along the way. I sent a separate email discussing Justin’s patch review feedback. In the build system today there is no strong