search for: masonwheeler

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to build LLVM, synced from SVN trunk yesterday. > > I ran CMake and it generated VS 2008 project files, so far so good.  Then I > tried to build them, by building the ALL_BUILD project. > > It got the first three all right...

> From: Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > > On 29 July 2015 at 20:14, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well, yes, an unwinding expert *was* who I was really hoping to hear from. But > > if I understand correctly, you're saying that rather than seeing the values Ben > > reported, the sample code crashes on you on both compilers? I do notice that &gt...

On 29 July 2015 at 22:23, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > That would be Ben. :) We'll get there, eventually... :) > Meh. It's more of a "if you build it, they will come" thing. We haven't > finished building it yet, but when we do, they *will* come! :D Thought so. Ben will have to learn a lot a...

Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> writes: >>If the following statement is true, then which build system to choose >>is a no-brainer: > >>> cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There >>> are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support >>-- Ch...

Hi all, I'm trying to build LLVM, synced from SVN trunk yesterday. I ran CMake and it generated VS 2008 project files, so far so good.  Then I tried to build them, by building the ALL_BUILD project. It got the first three all right, but choked on template issues in LLVMCore: 1>------ Build started: Project: LLVMCore, Configuration: Debug Win32 ------ 1>Compiling... 1>Verifier.cpp

On 29 July 2015 at 16:53, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > A couple weeks ago, Ben Pye, a developer working on the ARM32 stuff, found > and reported a bug related to incorrect generation of stack unwinding info. > ( https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24146 ) Apparently it only occurs > under a highly specific set of...

> From: Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > > > On 29 July 2015 at 16:53, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > > A couple weeks ago, Ben Pye, a developer working on the ARM32 stuff, found > > and reported a bug related to incorrect generation of stack unwinding info. > > ( https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24146 ) Apparently it only occurs > > under a hi...

Hi all, I'm working on the CoreCLR project, coordinating a community effort to produce an Android port of Microsoft's open-source version of the CLR.  A major part of that is getting everything to run on the ARM32 architecture, which is by far the most common CPU for Android devices. A couple weeks ago, Ben Pye, a developer working on the ARM32 stuff, found and reported a bug related to

>----- Original Message ----- >From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> >You are misinformed. The LLVM CMake scripts can build LLVM/Clang as >shared libraries since almost day one. > >If you are thinking of Windows, well, there is a fundamental limitation >there, not an issue with CMake. Autoconf has a hack for building LLVM as >a single, monolithic dll while using

On 29 July 2015 at 20:14, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler at yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, yes, an unwinding expert *was* who I was really hoping to hear from. But > if I understand correctly, you're saying that rather than seeing the values Ben > reported, the sample code crashes on you on both compilers? I do notice that > you're us...

>From: David Röthlisberger <david at rothlis.net> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet? > >If the following statement is true, then which build system to choose >is a no-brainer: >> cmake, while ugly, can be made to support all of our use cases. There >> are some use cases that autoconf+make can't support >-- Chandler Carruth, On 21

On 26 Jun 2012, at 20:26, James K. Lowden wrote: > I used autoconf to build Clang not because I'm "stuck" on a > system without Cmake, but because I have expertise in autoconf and none > with Cmake. I've never found Cmake compelling enough to justify > learning a new feature-test and dependency syntax. Before discussing the technical merits of CMake vs autoconf,

>From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] is configure+make dead yet? > >As for Visual Studio, autoconf is pretty useless, >so no dll's there in any case until someone sprinkles the LLVM C++ >sources with the necessary declarations. Thinking about this a little more, is that even necessary?  Exporting the C++ API in a DLL is useless due