Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "r181130".
2014 Dec 10
2
[LLVMdev] [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
On 10 December 2014 at 16:06, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Sumanth,
>
> Christophe (cc'd) is seeing the same problems on his build. It seems
> that r181130 (by Tim) has something to do with it, but I'm not sure.
>
> I remember trying to build compiler-rt on AArch64 natively in
> February, and even running the test-suite with it, so I'm sure it
> should work (modulo regressions).
>
Removing compiler-rt from projects sources enabl...
2014 Dec 01
3
[LLVMdev] [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
Hi,
I wonder if this is a valid flag in either clang/gcc.
The flag in question is "-march=aarch64". I verified with latest tip and neither clang nor gcc fail to recognize this flag.
This piece of code is in cmake/config-ix.cmake in compiler-rt repo.
+ elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64")
+ test_target_arch(aarch64
2014 Dec 16
2
[LLVMdev] [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
...inal Message-----
From: Tim Northover [mailto:t.p.northover at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:02 AM
To: Christophe Lyon
Cc: Renato Golin; Gundapaneni, Sumanth; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Kostya Serebryany
Subject: Re: [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
> Not sure what r181130 is supposed to do, though, since it introduces a
> buggy option.
I didn't even have compiler-rt checked out when I was doing that; I was just trying to get the base check-all working. As I recall that option filtered through to some llvm-lit config files. Though it might have been a .inc h...
2014 Dec 16
2
[LLVMdev] [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
...Northover [mailto:t.p.northover at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:02 AM
> To: Christophe Lyon
> Cc: Renato Golin; Gundapaneni, Sumanth; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Kostya Serebryany
> Subject: Re: [Compiler-rt] -march=aarch64 flag in gcc/clang
>
>> Not sure what r181130 is supposed to do, though, since it introduces a
>> buggy option.
>
> I didn't even have compiler-rt checked out when I was doing that; I was just trying to get the base check-all working. As I recall that option filtered through to some llvm-lit config files. Though it might have b...