similar to: [LLVMdev] Debian packaging?

Al Stone wrote: > Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to > get LLVM packaged and added to the Debian > distribution? We have added rpm creation in cvs and it will most likely be in the 1.2 release. With a provided rpm, Debian users can use alien to make it into a deb. -- Alkis

Okey dokey. I'll start setting things up. I think what I'll do is start with 1.1 (or the infamous and soon-to-be-released 1.2 :). Once that works, I'll probably put together a CVS snapshot version. I know LLVM currently supports ia32 and SPARC; is anyone looking at any other architectures? On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 17:30, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Al Stone wrote:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Al Stone wrote: > Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to get LLVM packaged and added to > the Debian distribution? Definitely not! Please do. :) Note that we have experimental support for RPM generation in CVS currently, which might give you a starting point to look at. If you have any questions or run into any problems, please just let us know! What version

So, I'm trying to build everything from source for the Debian package for LLVM, including the C/C++ front end. I'm running this build on LLVM 1.4 source (the released tarball), using Debian unstable (gcc 3.3.5, on a 2.6.8 kernel, on an x86_64 box, dual CPU). Before I get _too_ deep into it, I thought I would ask if the following compilation failure on the CFE looks the least bit familiar

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:04 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? > > The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't > provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but

Anyone willing to do some testing? I've finally gotten LLVM 1.4 to build Debian packages from source (it weren't pretty), at least for i386. To get the debs, add the following to your sources.list: deb http://toolchain.org/~ahs3 / deb-src http://toolchain.org/~ahs3 / then 'apt-get update' as usual. To install the packages: apt-get install llvm llvm-doc This will

On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 19:39 -0500, Adam Goode wrote: > Hi, > > I'm still working on the Fedora Extras package for LLVM. > > Because of the Fedora requirement that all packages in Extras be built > from source, I must build the dreaded C Front End. :) > > I think I've mostly got things set up correctly, but I've found what I > suspect is a tricky problem:

yes, so this happens on anything that uses a struct for va_list (like alpha). I am currently working on fixing this. if you look at the last patch to the alpha portion of llvm-gcc, you can see a quick hack to work around that (aka, get it to compile), but the resultant compiler will have issues with varargs. Alternately, build ia-32 binaries on x86_64, llvm-gcc is happy with the the abi there.

So. I _finally_ got the building and packaging of LLVM and the GCC FE into a state I'm more or less happy with. As a result, I uploaded x86 packages into the NEW queue just a little while ago. Whew. What this means is that in a few weeks (hard to say how long, really) the package will be reviewed by the Debian FTP masters. If they like/approve of what they see, they'll let the package

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > yes, so this happens on anything that uses a struct for va_list (like > alpha). I am currently working on fixing this. if you look at the last > patch to the alpha portion of llvm-gcc, you can see a quick hack to work > around that (aka, get it to compile), but the resultant compiler will > have issues with varargs. While Andrew is

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Al Stone wrote: > So. I _finally_ got the building and packaging of LLVM and the > GCC FE into a state I'm more or less happy with. As a result, I > uploaded x86 packages into the NEW queue just a little while ago. > Whew. Nice! Thanks a lot Al! -Chris > What this means is that in a few weeks (hard to say how long, > really) the package will be

On 29 Apr 2006 20:38:58 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Archie" == Archie Cobbs <archie at dellroad.org> writes: > > >> In the JIT, devirtualization looks doable, though somewhat fiddly. At > >> least, that is true for straightforward things like calls to methods > >> in final classes, or calls to

In trying to package up LLVM for Debian, it appears that x86_64 is no longer a supported architecture -- so, my first question is, is that correct? Best I can tell, the only thing that's supposed to work for x86_64 is the C backend. For Debian, I need to build everything from scratch. When trying to build llvm-gcc4 from source, though, I get part way through the build and am told that

Hi, I'm still working on the Fedora Extras package for LLVM. Because of the Fedora requirement that all packages in Extras be built from source, I must build the dreaded C Front End. :) I think I've mostly got things set up correctly, but I've found what I suspect is a tricky problem: make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/adam/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-1.8/llvm-gcc4-obj/gcc' Checking

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 04:56, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Hello! > > Is there an (semi)automatic way to save registers used by a function? For > > example, on my target I have to store ar0-ar4 and gr0-gr4, gr5, gr6. For > > now I just emit huge prologue code to push them all to stack -- even if > > they are not modified at all. > > >

On Thursday 21 October 2004 01:54, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Wednesday 20 October 2004 12:01, Reid Spencer wrote: > > I'm re-thinking my penchant for automake. automake is great for many > > standard applications that just need to get portable makefiles up and > > running quickly. However, it turns out that LLVM is "different enough" > > from a standard

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:47 -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > > It seems that these two classes are the same... Maybe they should be > > merged into 1 class? > > > I think you're looking at something old. MutexLocker doesn't exist any more. llvm/Support/ThreadSupport.h is not generated anymore? -- Alkis

It seems that these two classes are the same... Maybe they should be merged into 1 class? -- Alkis

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 12:01, Reid Spencer wrote: > I'm re-thinking my penchant for automake. automake is great for many > standard applications that just need to get portable makefiles up and > running quickly. However, it turns out that LLVM is "different enough" > from a standard application that automake might not be the best choice. I might just here to

Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is