search for: have_uint64_t

...fine to 1 if you have the <inttypes.h> header file. */ +#cmakedefine HAVE_INTTYPES_H ${HAVE_INTTYPES_H} + +/* Define to 1 if you have the <stdint.h> header file. */ +#cmakedefine HAVE_STDINT_H ${HAVE_STDINT_H} + +/* Define to 1 if the system has the type `uint64_t'. */ +#cmakedefine HAVE_UINT64_T ${HAVE_UINT64_T} + +/* Define to 1 if the system has the type `u_int64_t'. */ +#cmakedefine HAVE_U_INT64_T ${HAVE_U_INT64_T} + +#else + /* Define if dlopen(0) will open the symbols of the program */ #undef CAN_DLOPEN_SELF Just using +#define LLVM_IMPORT_ITERATOR_CONFIG +#include "llv...

Hi Yonggang! On Aug 27, 1:02 pm, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyongg... at gmail.com> wrote: > Because this patch must be applied in one time so that don't broken > the buildbot system. > So I just submit the configure and cmake at the same time. > Also, this patch add two new file > iterator.h > and > DataTypes.h What do you want to improve exactly? Do you experience

Because this patch must be applied in one time so that don't broken the buildbot system. So I just submit the configure and cmake at the same time. Also, this patch add two new file iterator.h and DataTypes.h for the reason that patch doesn't support for svn's rename mechanics. So I just add these two file and doesn't delete the old history files Because I doesn't get

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 11:28 +0200, awl1 via samba wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > and many thanks for your fast reply! :-) > > Am 08.06.2017 um 11:05 schrieb Andrew Bartlett: > > I think the key to avoiding the issue is that you have listed rpc > > modules which are not modules. The only rpc server module is > > rpc_mdssvc_module. > > Ah, OK, I see - so I

...gify -- Looking for argz_stringify - found -- Looking for dlerror -- Looking for dlerror - found -- Looking for dlopen -- Looking for dlopen - found -- Looking 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_ERROR_T -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T - Success -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success -- Performing Test SUP...

...ooking for dlerror - found > > -- Looking for dlopen > > -- Looking for dlopen - found > > -- Looking 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_ERROR_T > > -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T - Success > > -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS > &gt...

...t; -- Looking for dlerror > -- Looking for dlerror - found > -- Looking for dlopen > -- Looking for dlopen - found > -- Looking 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_ERROR_T > -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T - Success > -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS > -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMI...

On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hi, I'm trying to compile the latest clang/llvm SVN versions and I get > this error on multiple systems : Linking, not compiling, but still. I am getting a similar error when building this morning. > Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: > "clang::Sema::checkPseudoObjectRValue(clang::Expr*)", referenced

...gt;> > -- Looking for dlopen >> > -- Looking for dlopen - found >> > -- Looking 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_ERROR_T >> > -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T - Success >> > -- Performing Test L...

...set co > cross-compiled binaries and installed them successfully onto my NAS. > Many thanks for your help in getting there! > while the output of my freshly cross-compiled version does not have any > single of them: > > $ grep 64 smbd-b_new.txt > HAVE_INT64_T > HAVE_UINT64_T > SIZEOF_INT64_T > SIZEOF_UINT64_T > > Does this mean that my new version will handle large files (with a > length of more than fits into 32 bits) inefficiently (or even not at > all)? Or is this difference in output expected and I simply don't need > to worry....

...open > >> > -- Looking for dlopen - found > >> > -- Looking 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_ERROR_T > >> > -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T - Success > >...

...4 HAVE_READDIR64 HAVE_SENDFILE64 HAVE_STAT64 HAVE_STRUCT_DIRENT64 HAVE___OPEN64 HAVE___PREAD64 HAVE___PWRITE64 _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE while the output of my freshly cross-compiled version does not have any single of them: $ grep 64 smbd-b_new.txt HAVE_INT64_T HAVE_UINT64_T SIZEOF_INT64_T SIZEOF_UINT64_T Does this mean that my new version will handle large files (with a length of more than fits into 32 bits) inefficiently (or even not at all)? Or is this difference in output expected and I simply don't need to worry. Note that in my compile options, I...

Hi, I'm trying to compile the latest clang/llvm SVN versions and I get this error on multiple systems : (Compiling with gcc): llvm[4]: Compiling cc1_main.cpp for Debug+Asserts build llvm[4]: Compiling cc1as_main.cpp for Debug+Asserts build llvm[4]: Compiling driver.cpp for Debug+Asserts build llvm[4]: Linking Debug+Asserts executable clang

...- Looking for dlerror > -- Looking for dlerror - found > -- Looking for dlopen > -- Looking for dlopen - found > -- Looking for __GLIBC__ > -- Looking for __GLIBC__ - not 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 LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS > -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success > -- Found LibXml2: /sw/lib/libxml2.dylib (found version "2.9.1...

...r setenv -- Looking for setenv - found -- Looking for dlerror -- Looking for dlerror - found -- Looking for dlopen -- Looking for dlopen - found -- Looking for __GLIBC__ -- Looking for __GLIBC__ - not 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 LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success -- Found LibXml2: /sw/lib/libxml2.dylib (found version "2.9.1") -- Performing Test SU...

...ng for dlerror - found > > -- Looking for dlopen > > -- Looking for dlopen - found > > -- Looking for __GLIBC__ > > -- Looking for __GLIBC__ - not 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 LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS > > -- Performing Test LLVM_HAS_ATOMICS - Success > > -- Found LibXml2: /sw/lib/libxml2.dy...

...gt; -- Looking for dlopen - found >> >> > -- Looking 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_ERROR_T >> >> > -- Performing Test HAVE_ERROR_T...

...g for setenv -- Looking for setenv - found -- Looking for dlerror -- Looking for dlerror - found -- Looking for dlopen -- Looking for dlopen - found -- Looking 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...

This file is for configure+make build, not CMake, so I'm not sure why it's being included into your build (these failures aren't reproducible for me). Can you please list the exact steps you're doing to build LLVM with CMake and make sure you don't have additional CFLAGS (LDFLAGS etc) defined? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>

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?