Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "uncannily".
2004 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Compiling FreeType 2.1.9 with LLVM 1.4
...SI__)));
...
...because there's 4.8MB of them and I'd first like to confirm this is
what I should be attaching. I'm sorry but at this stage I don't have the
capabilities to narrow down the FreeType source code to a minimum test
case (unless the FreeType source code happens to looks uncannily like the
C version of Hello, World!)
Regards,
Adam
2004 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] Re: Compiling FreeType 2.1.9 with LLVM 1.4
.....because there's 4.8MB of them and I'd first like to confirm this is
> what I should be attaching. I'm sorry but at this stage I don't have the
> capabilities to narrow down the FreeType source code to a minimum test
> case (unless the FreeType source code happens to looks uncannily like the
> C version of Hello, World!)
Can you just capture the pre-processed source for the one FreeType file
that produces the errors about the non-constant initialization? Just see
what the makefile spits out for a compilation command for that one file
and change "-c" to "-E&q...
2004 Dec 20
3
[LLVMdev] Compiling FreeType 2.1.9 with LLVM 1.4
Adam,
I recant my previous message. I built FreeType with GCC not LLVMGCC by
accident (I shoulda checked!). The thing is, FreeType's makefiles don't
respect environment variables. So, I did this:
CC=/path/to/llvmgcc CXX=/path/to/llvmg++ configure
make
and was able to reproduce the problem. Not sure what's up with that but
as Misha pointed out, llvmgcc isn't any
2004 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Compiling FreeType 2.1.9 with LLVM 1.4
...there's 4.8MB of them and I'd first like to confirm this is
>>what I should be attaching. I'm sorry but at this stage I don't have the
>>capabilities to narrow down the FreeType source code to a minimum test
>>case (unless the FreeType source code happens to looks uncannily like the
>>C version of Hello, World!)
>>
>>
>
>Can you just capture the pre-processed source for the one FreeType file
>that produces the errors about the non-constant initialization? Just see
>what the makefile spits out for a compilation command for that one fil...