similar to: SCO OS3 build broken (CVS 01/12/01)

I'm wonder if anyone happens to have a simplier (slower) version of bsd-snprintf.c. It seems NeXT 3.3 (unsure about 4.2) is missing mprotect(). If I could get something to replace that for a while and fix some of theses utmp in login.c issues I may have a rough port NeXT to black hardware.=) Thanks

This only happens on platforms with a faulty implementation of realloc(). Some C libraries do not allow realloc() to be called with a NULL pointer to resize. The assignment ISOLatin1 <- 0:255 in Rprofile then causes a core dump. The attached set of 4 patches should be very safe to use and fix the problem. --please do not edit the information below-- Version: platform = i386-pc-sco3.2v4.2

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=615 ------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au 2003-09-06 12:51 ------- Created an attachment (id=387) --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=387&action=view) Move libgen test after dirname test Looked at this again, I think the reason it's not working is libgen has already been detected before the dirname test,

Hi, I need to find a way to extract all BasicBlocks of a Function (no clones!) into a new Function that has the exact same signature, and adding a call to the new Function in the old one. I tried out lib/ Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor::ExtractCodeRegion(...), but this one unfortunately checks first to see whether there are any allocas and/ or va_starts and returns a null pointer in that

Hi all. I am cleaning up (I hope) one of the nastier pieces of code in openssh: do_setusercontext which is/was a twisty maze of platform-specific nested ifdefs. I made a series of changes[1] where I moved each platform-specific piece into a portable-only file platform.c, which does not need to be kept in sync with OpenBSD. The changes did not (I hope!) change the semantics, but there's one

This is of course an incorrect usage, which I've trapped at R level, so as to give an informative warning. On Tue, 28 May 2002 NEFTH@pacbell.net wrote: > The following sequence of commands: > graphics.off() > dev.control("inhibit") > > causes R to memory-fault and core dump. This is reported > for a new port of R, but is also reproducible on Windows > and

LLVMers, And while we're on the subject to the type definitions table, what's the difference between 0e 07 01 00 function returning Int ( Void )? Function returning Int ( ... )? and 0e 07 00 Function returning Int () I'm guessing the former really is a function returning Int ( ... ), but how is the callee supposed to decode the parameter list? I'm an old callee and I

When I use clang on an x86-64 to spit out the LLVM, like this clang -O -S -emit-llvm varargstest.c where varargstest.c looks like this int add_em_up(int count, ...) { va_list ap; int i, sum; va_start(ap, count); sum = 0; for (i = 0; i < count; i++) sum += va_arg(ap, int); va_end(ap); return sum; } I see LLVM that looks like it's been customized for the x86-64, versus

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Bram Adams wrote: > One of the obstacles I face when trying to do the complement > (creating new Function and adding call to original in it), is to find > out how to pass the varargs argument of the new Function into the > call to the old Function. Will passing the sbyte** passed to > llvm.va_start do the trick? I think this is the better way to go. If

For the variadic function error with AMD64 abi and windows calling convention on 64bits x86, I find it has been tracked in Bug 20847 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20847) (http://reviews.llvm.org/D1622#inline-9345). Do we still plan to fix it? You know, I meet exactly same va_arg mistake with llvm3.7 when I enable the Uefi firmware (http://www.uefi.org/) build with clang. The ms_abi is

Specifying -no-implicit-float prevents LLVM from using non-GPR registers for purely integer operations. This is useful for operating systems (such as Wind River's VxWorks) that support tasks that do not save all registers on context switch. This presents an interesting problem for variadic functions that may optionally take non-integer arguments (e.g. printf style functions). Should non-GPR

Hello again! We have fetched the latest llvm sources from repository and the original problem has went away. Though now we are facing a new problem with interpreter on the following c code: -------------- #include <stdarg.h> #include <stdio.h> void doTheThing(int dummy, ...) { va_list ap; int z; va_start(ap, dummy); while( (z = va_arg(ap, int))!=0) { printf("==

Hi Richard, Thank you for the info. I build my code in Ubuntu-64bits with simply commands: “clang X64.c”, then run “./a.out” to see the output. If I replace my va_list, va_start, va_arg va_end with __builtin_ms_va_list, __builtin_ms_va_start, __builtin_ms_va_arg, __builtin_ms_va_end, my code will build fail in Ubuntu with below message. Do you suggest I should build it in windows and not in

Hi, So the Variable Argument Handling Intrinsics section of the LangRef (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#variable-argument-handling-intrinsics) lists an example that segfaults. Try the following on x86_64: -- 8< -- define i32 @test(i32 %X, ...) { ; Initialize variable argument processing %ap = alloca i8* %ap2 = bitcast i8** %ap to i8* call void @llvm.va_start(i8* %ap2) ; Read a

Hi, Op 2-okt-06, om 21:35 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > I think the easiest way to do this is to do the 'complement' as you > describe, but specially handle the varargs case. Basically you > need to > call va_start in the original function, and pass the valist pointer > down. > This shouldn't be too hard. OK. I've been rethinking my use

On 02/01/2010 01:13 PM, Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hello again! > > We have fetched the latest llvm sources from repository and the > original problem has went away. Though now we are facing a new problem > with interpreter on the following c code: > > -------------- > #include <stdarg.h> > #include <stdio.h> > > void doTheThing(int dummy, ...) > {

Hello everyone, I made a quick patch to clang/llvm to introduce an "apple_abi" function attribute (https://github.com/aguinet/llvm-project/commit/c4905ded3afb3182435df30e527955031cb0d098), to be able to compile functions for the Apple ARM64 ABI when targeting other ARM64 OSes (e.g. Linux). This can be seen as the Apple version of the already existing "ms_abi" attribute. In

Thanks for reviving this topic! Interestingly we have essentially the same fix you mention below ( https://reviews.llvm.org/D62639) as a local change in our Wind River version of LLVM. The reason we didn't try to push it upstream (and in fact have considered removing it) is due to an unfortunate side-effect which is either "expected" or a "bug" depending on your

The user level OpenCL code shouldn't have to align start and end addresses to a page boundary. That is better handled in the nouveau driver. The npages field is also redundant since it can be computed from the start and end addresses. Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com> --- This is for Ben Skegg's nouveau tree. I have been working with Karol Herbst on the

Hi, Op 3-okt-06, om 20:48 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > You'd have to change it to something like: > > void foo(int X, ...) { > P = va_start(); > bar(X, P); > } > > void bar(int X, valist P) { > use(P); > } Can the other va_...-intrinsics be used in bar as were the "P = va_start" in bar? The va_start probably is unnecessary