search for: r196475

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "r196475".

2013 Dec 09
2
[LLVMdev] GNU LLD build error? Seems that Clang likes LLD just fine.
We should make LLD to be able to build with GCC even if GCC is a bit buggy. So you wrote that it's no longer build because of the recent change of makeArrayRef removal? I think it's my change (r196475). Can you confirm that you can build if you revert that change? If it has caused the build with GCC to break, we should roll it back. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Yup, I can confirm that. Then the question is if LLD shouldn't comp...
2013 Dec 09
0
[LLVMdev] GNU LLD build error? Seems that Clang likes LLD just fine.
...hat is the problem. -- Mikael 2013/12/9 Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> > We should make LLD to be able to build with GCC even if GCC is a bit > buggy. So you wrote that it's no longer build because of the recent change > of makeArrayRef removal? I think it's my change (r196475). > > Can you confirm that you can build if you revert that change? If it has > caused the build with GCC to break, we should roll it back. > > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > >> Yup, I can confirm that. Then the qu...
2013 Dec 08
0
[LLVMdev] GNU LLD build error? Seems that Clang likes LLD just fine.
Yup, I can confirm that. Then the question is if LLD shouldn't compile with GNU, even if GNU is buggy. Personally, I think it is worth a lot to be able to build with GCC, but I don't know how the LLD developers feel about that. -- Mikael 2013/12/7 Simon Atanasyan <simon at atanasyan.com> > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith > <dexonsmith at
2013 Dec 07
2
[LLVMdev] GNU LLD build error? Seems that Clang likes LLD just fine.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > On 2013 Dec 7, at 04:23, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > >> I am using the -std=c++11 flag to GCC. > > I didn’t even look at your errors, but my understanding is that -std=gnu++11 is more used (and much better tested) than -std=c++11. Any chance that fixes it