Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "switchstmttest".
2010 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
...at calls IRBuilder.SetCurrentDebugLocation()).
>
> Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 - Maverick Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the following error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to assembly):
>
> SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
> SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
>
This is a known Linux binutils bug. There is a llvm pr in bugzilla database, I don't remember the no. though.
-
Devang
> Note that this is still with calls to IRBuilder.SetCurrentDebugL...
2010 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
...wrote:
>
> >> Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 -
> Maverick Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the
> following error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to
> assembly):
> >>
> >> SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
> >> SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
> >>
> >
> > This is a known Linux binutils bug. There is a llvm pr in bugzilla
> database, I don't remember the no. though.
>
> Direct .o file writing supp...
2010 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
..., 2010, at 8:17 AM, Devang Patel wrote:
>> Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 - Maverick Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the following error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to assembly):
>>
>> SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
>> SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
>>
>
> This is a known Linux binutils bug. There is a llvm pr in bugzilla database, I don't remember the no. though.
Direct .o file writing support for ELF is nearing functiona...
2010 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
...Devang Patel wrote:
>
> >> Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 - Maverick Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the following error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to assembly):
> >>
> >> SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
> >> SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
> >>
> >
> > This is a known Linux binutils bug. There is a llvm pr in bugzilla database, I don't remember the no. though.
>
> Direct .o file writing support...
2010 Oct 14
1
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
...;> Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 -
>> Maverick Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the
>> following error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to
>> assembly):
>> >>
>> >> SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
>> >> SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is a known Linux binutils bug. There is a llvm pr in bugzilla
>> database, I don't remember the no. though.
>>
>>...
2010 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
...he code that calls
> IRBuilder.SetCurrentDebugLocation()).
>
Interestingly enough, I just upgraded to the latest Ubuntu (10.10 - Maverick
Meercat), and the LLVM-generated code no longer builds: I get the following
error in the assembler stage (after the bitcode is converted to assembly):
SwitchStmtTest.s: Assembler messages:
SwitchStmtTest.s:294899: Fatal error: duplicate .debug_line sections
Note that this is still with calls to IRBuilder.SetCurrentDebugLocation()
disabled - My FE is not emitting any debug line information at all at this
time.
> As per usual, this is with a recent LLVM...
2010 Oct 10
2
[LLVMdev] More DIFactory questions - still stumped
BTW, the reason I stopped responding to this thread is not because I solved
the problem, but because I simply gave up and decided to work on other
things for a while since I was making no progress. Having finished those
other things (the stack crawler, for one), I'm hoping that time and a fresh
start will yield better results. Unfortunately after about a day spent
reviewing old llvm-dev