similar to: [LLVMdev] Cygwin Compile Fails for me too.

Hi These are: ======================== llvm[2]: Linking Release Object Library LLVMbzip2.o gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/lib/Support/bzip2' gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/lib/Support' gmake[1]: Entering directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/utils' gmake[2]: Entering directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/utils/Burg' llvm[2]:

If you're on the new Makefile system, you will want to update your Makefile.rules. The patch below provides some important fixes for parallel builds and dependencies. It also adds some new features like the -local targets. For example, you can now build "all-local" to build the local directory without recursing into subdirectories. See the comments below for details of the change.

It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/SparcV9/2004-12-07.html Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > llvm[2]: Compiling zalloc.c for Release build > > /homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/../llvmsrc/utils/Burg/zalloc.c:9: error: conflictin > > g types for

I commented this line and it is compiling now: extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); I hope that will not cause a different kind of problem. What it is zalloc used for? Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: > >

Hallo, I'm trying to write an gentoo ebuild for the c frontend. When make runs libstdc++/configure I get some problems: configure tries to determine the object extensionbut fails. This is the output: checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking target system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking for a BSD-compatible install... checking for perl... perl checking build system type...

Hi, Today I've succeded in compiling the llvm-tools, llvm-gcc and stacker frontend and in installing it. Uptill now I've followed the steps given in: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/CFEBuildInstrs.html with modifications for the mingw platform. I'll return with step-by-step instructions how to do it on this platform. Cheers Henrik :)

Hi, I installed the cfrontend 1.5 and LLVM 1.5 from source in cygwin successfully using GCC3.4.3 and binutils2.15 (as in makefiles do not complain errors except some warnings). However when I do this, there are some errors like, *************************************************************** u0201201 at 9nnvf2ay /home/cfrontend/install/lib $ llvm-ranlib libiberty.a llvm-ranlib: Error opening

I have built and configured the test suits as told at http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#testsuite. The llvm is built with configuration: SRC_DIR/configure --prefix=INS_DIR --enable-debug-runtime --disable-optimized --enable-debug-symbols --enable-assertions This configuration is used again in the re-configure process. However, after the re-configure process, the following "make"

There is almost certainly a bug in lnt or the makefiles. I changed the body of Burg main to the following: + printf("Hello World\n"); + return 0; I re-ran the test-suite again and got the following errors: --- Tested: 986 tests -- FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg.execution_time (494 of 986) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan.execution_time (495 of 986) FAIL:

> I installed the cfrontend 1.5 and LLVM 1.5 from source in cygwin > successfully using GCC3.4.3 and binutils2.15 (as in makefiles do not > complain errors except some warnings). > > However when I do this, there are some errors like, > > *************************************************************** > u0201201 at 9nnvf2ay /home/cfrontend/install/lib > $ llvm-ranlib

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for your answer! Chris Lattner wrote: >> 1. Why does X86 instruction set description provide different >> descriptions for the same instructions, which differ only in the size >> of operands? >> E.g. >> >> def MOV8rm : I<0x8A, MRMSrcMem, (ops GR8 :$dst, i8mem :$src), >> "mov{b} {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}",

Reid, I think it is the first time it is run that the errors occcur !? Not sure but that would seem logical. Aaron

Hi, I figured out how to resolve the failures. I noticed that Mountain Lion includes Bison 2.3 while Ubuntu 12.04 includes Bison 2.5. I installed Bison 2.3 from source in Ubuntu and the failures went away. I'm a little concerned that the bison version fixed all the failures I was seeing. To my knowledge the only failing test that depended on bison was Burg. It almost looks like one failure

On Apr 4, 8:06 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > heisenbug wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > >>>

Sorry, I forgot to give all you guys my credit, too. Without your help - especially from Jeff, Morten, Reid and Chris, to name a few, this wouldn't have succeded. Just for fun, I ran from a windows command prompt the fibinacci.exe with the argument of 10 and it returned 55. All in all, something lives. Great! :) >From: "Henrik Bach" Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:26:02 +0100

Hi, I get the following failures when I run the test-suite on linux (Ubuntu 12.04) using LNT (lnt runtest nt ...): (all are execution failures) MultiSource/Applications/Burg MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV MultiSource/Applications/lemon MultiSource/Applications/obsequi MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-bitcount

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > There is almost certainly a bug in lnt or the makefiles. > > I changed the body of Burg main to the following: > > + printf("Hello World\n"); > + return 0; > > > I re-ran the test-suite again and got the following errors: > > --- Tested: 986 tests -- > FAIL:

Chris, Thanks for your answer Here is the verbose output: =========================== gmake tools-only VERBOSE=1 TOOL_VERBOSE=1 for dir in lib/System lib/Support utils lib tools ; do \ if [ ! -f $dir/Makefile ]; then \ /home/myuser/LLVM/objdir/../srcdir/autoconf/mkinstalldirs $dir; \ cp /home/myuser/LLVM/objdir/../srcdir//$dir/Makefile $dir/Makefile; \ fi; \ (gmake -C $dir all )

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >