search for: targeting

With reference to the following thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094100.html I am having the same issue. First I did a git pull of all the relevant directories and then doing a cmake: cmake -DLLVM_ENABLE_DOXYGEN=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=OFF -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" ../llvm and followed by make: [ 22%] Built target LLVMVectorize [ 25%] Built target

Hi, The test-suite expects to be built standalone but it looks like you have it in the same tree as LLVM. You'll need to remove it. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Teoh via llvm-dev Sent: 28 February 2016 14:31 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched With reference to the following thread:

I think we've just forgotten to update that part of the instructions. Having the test-suite at projects/test-suite was harmless to the old autoconf and LLVM 3.7.x's cmake builds because it didn't actually cause the test-suite to be built. The CMakeLists.txt that have been added to the test-suite now cause it to be built by LLVM's build system which introduces the build failure. We

I am finding with the patch that all of the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks pass on i686-apple-darwin9. Could someone clarify the regression rules for releases? Not building a secondary language on a primary target is usually considered a P1 regression for FSF gcc. Not doing so here gives one the impression that llvm.org isn't playing by the same rules. No one is ever going to want to use these

> On 27 Jun 2017, at 13:25, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > Despite the statement in the HowToCrossCompileLLVM guide "If you’re > using Clang as the cross-compiler, there is a problem in the LLVM ARM > back-end that is producing absolute relocations on > position-independent code (R_ARM_THM_MOVW_ABS_NC), so for now, you

From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> The zImage compatible binary is the useful one on real hardware. The relocated ELF thing is only really useful when booting directly on Fast Models. The customary suffix for that case is .axf so provide that as a target. Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> Cc: Wookey <wookey@linaro.org> --- xen/arch/arm/Makefile |

Oh, so it looks like I hit a bit of a wall there :-) I’ll take a look thanks. That bug talks about R_ARM_THM_CALL which I assume are thumb related. Will your implementation fix also R_ARM_CALL errors? > On 28 Jun 2017, at 17:15, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > The LLD ARM port doesn't currently support range extension thunks,

I've successfully used Peter's patches to get past those relocation errors. On 6/28/17, 9:36 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Peter Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Yes it should cover the following relocations: R_ARM_CALL (ARM BL/BLX) R_ARM_JUMP24 (ARM B) R_ARM_THM_CALL (Thumb BL/BLX)

Jan suggested a couple of cleanups based upon my "xen: allow architecture to choose whether to compress installed xen binary" patch. So this series now consists of: xen: allow architecture to choose how/whether to compress installed xen binary xen: x86: drop the ".gz" suffix when installing xen: Use $(T) and $(D) aliases in install target This is based

test/trace/Makefile.am | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++ test/trace/definelocal-function-target-5.swf |binary test/trace/definelocal-function-target-5.swf.trace | 5 +++ test/trace/definelocal-function-target-6.swf |binary test/trace/definelocal-function-target-6.swf.trace | 5 +++ test/trace/definelocal-function-target-7.swf |binary

The bottom of the bug has the revision numbers (e.g. D34035). That one corresponds to e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34035 There's also https://reviews.llvm.org/D34634 which contains all of Peter's patches, but it's not going to rebase cleanly once the individual patches start going in. On 6/28/17, 10:56 AM, "Alessandro Pistocchi" <apukfreelance at gmail.com> wrote:

I tried to build the gold plugin and receive the errors posted below. I checked out the gold plugin using "cvs -z 9 -d :pserver:anoncvs at sourceware.org:/cvs/src co src," as documented on llvm.org. Is that version bleeding edge and perhaps not stable? The first errors have to do with the libtool version. I have libtool 2.2.6 on my system, which is what the README-maintainer-mode

At a guess that looks like your llvm and lld checkouts are not quite in synch. It will be worth updating llvm and lld to top of trunk. I've rebased the consolidated patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D34634 this morning, it might be worth trying that if you are seeing problems. Peter On 29 June 2017 at 22:09, Alessandro Pistocchi <apukfreelance at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I tried

Hi, I am trying to install R 2.9.0 on AIX 5.3. During the 'make' run I get the following error: Error: Invalid DESCRIPTION file Invalid Priority field. Packages with priorities 'base' or 'recommended' or 'defunct-base' must already be known to R. See the information on DESCRIPTION files in section 'Creating R packages' of the

I'm trying to write a script for checking whether the compiler recursed properly. rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/slave/recurse3be/build$ find . -name "*.o" -exec cmp '{}' ../../recurse2be/build/'{}' \; |& tee foo.txt Is anyone else doing this? There 2 compilers, recurse 2 and recurse3 that in principle should be identical. Obviously if there is date and time

Hi all, I would like to start a thread on RoR related issues on the new Intel version of Mac OS X. I have been using Apple''s new iMac Core Duo (which comes with Intel version of Mac OS X) for about a week now. Here''s my experience: Ruby 1.8.4: It compiles albeit with many warnings. Most warnings were about "differ in signedness". It seems to work okay

We've had a circular dependency in LLVM for a while, and while we've been fortunate that we could ignore it by implementing functions in header files, a recent innocent change caused a cyclic dependency between Target and CodeGen just because of inlining that happens in GCC. I'm proposing to fix this by moving code from Target to CodeGen If I understand correctly, lib/CodeGen is

I have mixed feeling about this. While this does separate out target-independent pieces into CodeGen, it also introduces some confusion where the default implementation is in CodeGen while target overridden version are in Target. I also hate to see all these Target* classes being moved to CodeGen. I thought our solution to this issue is classes such as TargetInstrInfoImpl. What's wrong with

Hello, I downloaded LLVM 2.6 and was attempting to compile it with TDM-GCC 4.4.1-tdm2-sjlj + cmake 2.6.4 and this happened: =============Console=================== C:\projects\game-editor\LLVM\build-root>mingw32-make [ 2%] Built target LLVMSystem [ 5%] Built target LLVMSupport [ 7%] Built target tblgen [ 7%] Built target intrinsics_gen [ 10%] Built target LLVMCore [ 12%] Built target

Is anyone besides me using gcc 4.*.*? I noticed that NUT generates an enormous amount of warning noise with that compiler, mostly due to implicit casts between signed/unsigned pointer types. Any volunteers to de-noise the code a bit? The easy way is to insert typecasts; the better way is to actually take care about signedness. -- Peter gcc -I../include -O -Wall -Wsign-compare -c -o everups.o