similar to: [LLVMdev] Build error with gcc 4.1.1

I fixed my immediate problem by using a different version of gcc. Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > The offending line of code looks fine on our side, > but there could be something I'm missing. For what it is worth, I've run into problems with boost_concept_check before when using Boost.Python. Some versions of gcc worked fine, while others gave error messages relating to

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Kellom�ki Pertti wrote: > I am trying to build llvm 1.8a with gcc 4.1.1 and I get the attached error. > Are there any easy workarounds or should I just try another version of gcc? I haven't seen this error, but I'm not using GCC 4.1.1. It would be good to track this down and either file a bug with GCC or for us to get it fixed in LLVM. The

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > I fixed my immediate problem by using a different version > of gcc. ok. > Chris Lattner kirjoitti: >> The offending line of code looks fine on our side, >> but there could be something I'm missing. > > For what it is worth, I've run into problems with boost_concept_check > before when using

Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > Question: does GCC 4.1.2 (if it exists) or GCC mainline fix the > problem? If so, we should document 4.1.1 as being buggy. GCC 4.1.2 does not exist yet, but I grabbed the 4.2-20060906 snapshot of GCC and it compiled LLVM without problems. I verified that the hello world example from Getting Started worked, but did not test beyond that. This is on x86 Gentoo. --

There was some discussion in the summer on the mailing list about atomicity and synchronization primitives for LLVM. Is there any progress being made in that department? -- Pertti

As I have explained in another thread, I am in the process of porting portions of newlib to LLVM. The target system has no operating system and a custom processor which may be changed from compilation to compilation. We intend to use LLVM as the front end and generate target specific code from LLVM byte code. For various reasons (whole program optimization being one of them), it would seem to

We are going to use LLVM in a compiler project for transport triggered processors. See Wikipedia for more on transport triggering: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Triggered_Architectures>. One thing we need is some sort of libc. We are targeting embedded systems, and I have been looking at things like newlib. Are there people out there doing something similar? Or any advice or

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > Aside from stuff that depends on system headers, are there any other > dependencies on the host system? In other words, will llvm-gcc produce > exactly the same byte code for a given set of source files regardless of > where compilation takes place? This has obvious implications on Yes. Many aspects of the target compiler

I managed to compile newlib with llvm-gcc yesterday. That is, the machine independent part is now basically done, and the syscall part contains no-op stubs provided by libgloss. I haven't tested the port yet, but since newlib has already been ported to many architectures, I would be pretty surprised if there were any major problems. A couple of things I noticed when configuring newlib for

We are using LLVM to target a customizable processor architecture. One of the activities to be supported is architecture exploration, where one explores the processor design space (e.g. connectivity, number of FUs) and tries to find a good match for the application at hand. The exploration needs to be relatively rapid, so targeting and compiling gcc for each of the processor variants is not

Hi Reid, I'll write a separate post about the intrinsics, but just a quick note about the CFLAGS issue. Reid Spencer kirjoitti: > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 15:29 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Another related thing is that even when I defined -emit-llvm in >> what I thought would be a global CFLAGS for all of newlib, it did >> not get propagated to all subdirectories.

I have been browsing through the newlib documentation at <http://sources.redhat.com/newlib/> and pondering about how newlib relates to LLVM. Comments welcome, again. As I see it, there are basically two parts of libc that need to be considered. Much of libc is stuff like atoi(), isalpha(), etc. which are just convenience routines written in ANSI C. For these, it should be sufficient to

Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > There isn't any really good reason to have an llvm intrinsic for write, > just leave 'write' as an external function. So is the opportunity for inlining the only reason for e.g. the llvm.memcpy intrinsic? -- Pertti

To follow up on my own post: > The only concern here is that this brings in all of libc, but I > suppose it should be easy enough to run dead code elimination on > linked.bc to shake out the unused bits? Cursory browsing of LLVM optimization passes did not turn up anything directly applicable, at least "opt -adce" and "opt -globaldce" did not reduce the size of the

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Emil Mikulic wrote: >> LLVMers, given the same endianness and pointersize, can one mix and >> match LLVM bytecode files produced on different platforms? > > No, not in general. For example, on the mac, printf it often #defined to > printf$ldbl, which doesn't exist on linux. System headers generally foil > the ability

Is there some fundamental reason why instructions have a visitor interface but types do not? Or does the support in fact exist and I am just blind? -- Pertti

Hi Pertti, The boost Python are not (yet) part of LLVM so I suppose it would make most sense to try to makes fixes/changes so they would work for 1.7 and then try to get them into LLVM CVS. It would be good in such a case to ask the author of the bindings again if he would allow this, because basicaly I think he has to agree to the LLVM lincense. cheers, Eric On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:08

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > There was some discussion in the summer on the mailing list > about atomicity and synchronization primitives for LLVM. Is > there any progress being made in that department? Nope, not that I know of. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > This came up when trying to compile the Python bindings > against llvm 1.7. File include/llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h > declares llvm::createPREPass(), which does not seem to > be implemented anywhere. Should I report this in llvmbugs? Just to clarify myself: this is an issue with the LLVM sources, not with the Python bindings. -- Pertti

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the compiler to fold >> the two char constants together. > True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. I don't have the C standard handy, but I would be somewhat surprised if the standard would explicitly