Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Cleaning out .d files"
2003 Aug 20
0
[LLVMdev] Cleaning out .d files
Chris Lattner wrote:
>I just wanted to mention that there is a new global makefile target "make
>cleandeps", which recursively walks through the source tree, deleting .d
>files, without removing anything else.
>
>This is useful when you update from CVS, and find out that there has been
>a header file removed. Before you'd have to go in and remove the
>outdated
2002 Oct 27
2
[LLVMdev] Compile error in include/Support/GraphWriter.h
Issue: GraphWriter includes <ostream>, which my gcc2 apparently thinks
is <ostream.h>.
Fix: Make a new <Support/ostream> that handles this discrepancy, ala
<Support/hash_set>.
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch
URL:
2002 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] Porting to x86 Linux
So, I had to make a few changes to the llvm sources to allow compilation
on x86 redhat 7.3 (gcc-2.96, glibc 2.2.4). Is there any general
interest in maintaining a port? I will happily submit patches.
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
2002 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: In Interpreter::getCurrentExecutablePath(), dladdr() is a
Solarisism. Luckily, getCurrentExecutablePath isn't being currently
used anywhere in lli.
ACTION: Wrap the method contents with #ifdef __sun__ ... #else return
""; #endif. If this functionality is actually desired, it would be more
portable to hack up main() to join getcwd() with basename(argv[0]) to
find the
2002 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>Interesting. INT64_MAX is supposed to be provided by
>>>include/Support/DataTypes.h. Do you know of a reliable preprocessor
>>>symbol that can be used to determine whether we're on a linux box, or
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Well, there is always __linux__, but that doesn't necessarily imply that
>>we
2002 Sep 17
1
[LLVMdev] Bug in InstructionCombining.cpp
ISSUE: This code:
%bob = type { int }
int %alias() {
%pbob1 = alloca %bob
%pbob2 = getelementptr %bob* %pbob1 ;pbob2 aliases
pbob1
%pbobel = getelementptr %bob* %pbob2, long 0, ubyte 0
%rval = load int* %pbobel
ret int %rval
}
Crashes when run through opt -instcombine. InstCombiner visits
instructions in reverse declaration order, but
2002 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: INT64_MAX undefined in InstrSelectionSupport.cpp and
InstructionCombining.cpp. I'm not completely sure where INT64_MAX comes
from on Solaris, but C99 says that INT64_MAX is defined in stdint.h,
but, for C++, only if __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS is #defined. Solaris (at
least in CSIL) unfortunately does not have stdint.h, but it does have
the old inttypes.h - and so does Linux.
ACTION: In
2002 Sep 13
3
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
Chris Lattner wrote:
>>ISSUE: INT64_MAX undefined in InstrSelectionSupport.cpp and
>>InstructionCombining.cpp. I'm not completely sure where INT64_MAX comes
>>from on Solaris, but C99 says that INT64_MAX is defined in stdint.h,
>>but, for C++, only if __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS is #defined. Solaris (at
>>least in CSIL) unfortunately does not have stdint.h, but it does
2002 Oct 18
2
[LLVMdev] PassManager and dependencies
I can't seem to figure out how to tell the PassManager that one Pass
requires the results of two other Passes, in such a way that it will not
crash itself. Attached file is the simplest possible example of Passes
A, B, and C, such that C's getAnalysisUsage(AU) method calls
AU.addRequired<A>() and AU.addRequired<B>().
When I try to run opt -load ... -opt-c, it tells me:
2002 Sep 29
1
[LLVMdev] the getelementptr noop problem
> so i confess i'm still not clear on what the first index into
> getelementptr is all about.
I'm sure you're not the only one. :) This is one of the wierdest aspects
of LLVM to the unaccustomed.
> it makes perfect sense for an example like
> getelementptr %mystruct * %reg100
> to just return a %mystruct * equivalent to %reg100.
>
> it does *not* make sense to
2002 Oct 28
2
[LLVMdev] Compile error in include/Support/GraphWriter.h
Bill? Wendling wrote:
>Also sprach Casey Carter:
>} Issue: GraphWriter includes <ostream>, which my gcc2 apparently thinks
>} is <ostream.h>.
>} Fix: Make a new <Support/ostream> that handles this discrepancy, ala
>} <Support/hash_set>.
>}
>Um...was it entirely necessary to issue *8* email messages to the group
>with mostly single-line fixes
2002 Oct 25
1
[LLVMdev] Makefile.common:388: Depend/xxx.d: No such file or directory
For your listening pleasure,
I got tired of seeing these unnecessary warnings from make, so I changed
the line from
include xxx
to
-include xxx
to make make be quiet.
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: p
URL:
2002 Sep 14
1
[LLVMdev] MP1: names
Does our pass need to ensure that the new names it creates for the field
allocations are, in fact, unique?
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
2018 Jun 06
2
Why am I getting login failures for domain members?
No ideas on this? Anybody?
--Mark
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 09:27:36 -0400
Organization: Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System
To: samba at lists.samba.org
Subject: [Samba] Why am I getting login failures for domain members?
Every so often I get a message in /var/log/samba/log.samba as follows:
2018/05/26 13:44:25.172415, 2] authentication for user [HPRS/LABRAT$] FAILED
2002 Oct 20
2
[LLVMdev] PassManager and dependencies
Chris Lattner wrote:
>>I don't grok this error message. Of course, -opt-a and -opt-b both work
>>fine in isolation.
>>
>>
>
>You're right, this error message is terrible. As it turns out, all of
>your passes invalidate all of the other passes, so C doesn't get A (which
>is invalidated by B). The problem turns out to be a really trivial bug:
2002 Sep 13
1
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: In CommandLine.h, gcc 2.96 thinks that the apply() template
function, when called as:
apply("Some text string", x)
should be expanded to
applicator<const char[n]>("Some text string", x)
instead of
applicator<char[n]>("Some text string", x).
ACTION: Duplicate the template specialization for applicator<char[n]> as
applicator<const
2002 Sep 13
1
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: In Interpreter::executeInstruction(), _sys_siglistp is a Solarisism.
ACTION: Replace _sys_siglistp[signo] with strsignal(signo) which is more
portable, maybe POSIX?
PATCH: Apply from llvm top-level directory with "patch -p0."
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text
2002 Sep 13
0
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatibility
ISSUE: getTimeRecord in lib/VMCore/Pass.cpp uses timeval and
gettimeofday() without including sys/time.h.
ACTION: Include sys/time.h.
PATCH: Apply from llvm top-level directory with "patch -p0."
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch
URL:
2002 Sep 13
1
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: ExternalFunctions.cpp::lookupFunction() calls dlsym(RTLD_DEFAULT,
...). In glibc, dlfcn.h does not make RTLD_DEFAULT visible unless
_GNU_SOURCE is #defined. Unlike the evil money-grubbing non-free
software pigs at sun, the FSF is trying not to pollute the C namespace. ;)
ACTION: Hack the Makefile to #define _GNU_SOURCE while compiling in
tools/lli. Yes, I know that this is ugly.
2002 Sep 13
1
[LLVMdev] Linux-x86 Compatability
ISSUE: Linux doesn't have any steenking SIGEMT signal, as referred to in
lib/Support/Signals.cpp.
ACTION: Wrap the use with a #ifdef SIGEMT / #endif.
PATCH: Apply from llvm top-level directory with "patch -p0".
--
Casey Carter
Casey at Carter.net
ccarter at uiuc.edu
AIM: cartec69
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...