search for: lakemper

...with libc++, whereas the used clang/LLVM compiler was originally built with clang and libstdc++. Related to the first question: do the above flags also make clang use libc++ by default, or is this configurable via a different set of flags? Thanks a lot in advance Michael -- Michael Schlottke-Lakemper SimLab Highly Scalable Fluids & Solids Engineering Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA-HPC) RWTH Aachen University Wüllnerstraße 5a 52062 Aachen Germany Phone: +49 (241) 80 95188 Fax: +49 (241) 80 92257 Mail: m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de Web: http://www.jara.org/jara-hpc

...th > libc++Abi, that both lib++ and libc++abi should be used (instead of linking > to the default, which at least on Linux is libstdc++)? Yes that is actually what they are used for. Please see http://reviews.llvm.org/D2381 Kind Regards Martell On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Schlottke-Lakemper, Michael < m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering about the meaning of the cmake flags LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX and > LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI. Are they used to indicate that if the C/C++ compiler > for building LLVM is clang, and if this clang has...

...d be used (instead of linking >> to the default, which at least on Linux is libstdc++)? > > > Yes that is actually what they are used for. > > Please see > http://reviews.llvm.org/D2381 > > Kind Regards > Martell > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Schlottke-Lakemper, Michael < > m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am wondering about the meaning of the cmake flags LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX >> and LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI. Are they used to indicate that if the C/C++ >> compiler for building LLVM is...

On 28 July 2015 at 12:10, Schlottke-Lakemper, Michael <m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > I am wondering about the meaning of the cmake flags LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX and LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI. Are they used to indicate that if the C/C++ compiler for building LLVM is clang, and if this clang has support for libc++ with li...

...les_go_here> CMakeFiles/zfs.dir/main.cpp.o -o zfs -rdynamic /zhome/academic/HLRS/xac/xacmicha/.pool/llvm/cur/lib/libLLVMSupport.a -ldl -lpthread /zhome/academic/HLRS/xac/xacmicha/.pool/llvm/cur/lib/libc++.so /zhome/academic/HLRS/xac/xacmicha/.pool/llvm/cur/lib/libc++abi.a -- Michael Schlottke-Lakemper Chair of Fluid Mechanics and Institute of Aerodynamics RWTH Aachen University Wüllnerstraße 5a 52062 Aachen Germany Phone: +49 (241) 80 95188 Fax: +49 (241) 80 92257 Mail: m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de<mailto:m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de> Web: http://www.aia.rwth-...

...po under lib/driver If you have any trouble doing this I'd be glad to help you change the default behavior if let me know what your target is. Kind Regards Martell On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 28 July 2015 at 12:10, Schlottke-Lakemper, Michael > <m.schlottke-lakemper at aia.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > > I am wondering about the meaning of the cmake flags LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX > and LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI. Are they used to indicate that if the C/C++ > compiler for building LLVM is clang, and if this clang has suppor...

Wouldn’t it it be possible to add a flag like the one used in the OpenMP subproject? There they default to linking to the non-functional libgomp (as far as I understand it), and if people want to use the actual libomp runtime, they have to specify -fopenmp=libomp when compiling/linking a program. At the same time, it is possible to use the libomp runtime library by default by specifying

On 28 July 2015 at 14:44, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com> wrote: > Adding a little to the topic what criteria would we need to make a target > use compiler-rt and libc++ as the default in the clang driver. > I have successfully built a standalone clang toolchain with mingw-w64 > without using gcc or binutils. There was another discussion with David Chisnall, where he

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > Hey Tom, > > I’m not a regular user of llvm-config, but this sounds completely right to me, and it would be a significant improvement over what we have now. > > The only question I want to raise is, what about NDEBUG? There are headers that conditionalize on NDEBUG, which could lead to ABI