Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "r223339".
2015 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] ARM regression between r223766 and r223925
...he failure for the first time?
No idea because I already had workarounded the original issue with
-no-integrated-as. BUT my build script log shows that I successfully
cross-compiled with NEON on December 4 2014. I usually do basic
testing of those builds on ARMv7. So, I suggest trying to bootstrap
r223339 with NEON. Thats the last commit for Dec 3.
ismail
2015 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] ARM regression between r223766 and r223925
...wrote:
> No idea because I already had workarounded the original issue with
> -no-integrated-as. BUT my build script log shows that I successfully
> cross-compiled with NEON on December 4 2014. I usually do basic
> testing of those builds on ARMv7. So, I suggest trying to bootstrap
> r223339 with NEON. Thats the last commit for Dec 3.
Right, I've already checked r223477 (5th Dec) to be green, so that
should do for the good end.
Since you reported on the 13th Dec that "trunk" was broken, I'm
assuming you checked out and built, which would put the bad side
earlier th...
2015 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] ARM regression between r223766 and r223925
On 30 January 2015 at 17:18, İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> wrote:
> My analysis was completely wrong because I had -no-integrated-as
> sneaked in libcxxabi CMakeLists.txt and then somehow I reverted it
> which showed me the initial failure. The Neon failure is completely
> unrelated which I figured out after trying to bootstrap with
> -mfpu=neon.
No worries. Do you
2015 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] ARM regression between r223766 and r223925
...dea because I already had workarounded the original issue with
>> -no-integrated-as. BUT my build script log shows that I successfully
>> cross-compiled with NEON on December 4 2014. I usually do basic
>> testing of those builds on ARMv7. So, I suggest trying to bootstrap
>> r223339 with NEON. Thats the last commit for Dec 3.
>
> Right, I've already checked r223477 (5th Dec) to be green, so that
> should do for the good end.
Nice!
> Since you reported on the 13th Dec that "trunk" was broken, I'm
> assuming you checked out and built, which wo...
2015 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] ARM regression between r223766 and r223925
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 13 December 2014 at 09:49, İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> wrote:
>> With trunk things got even worse while compiling a simple hello world cpp:
>>
>> 1. /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/4.9/../../../../include/c++/4.9/bits/basic_string.h:114:57:
>> current