similar to: [LLVMdev] Found Broken gcc?

Hi, > While attempting to compile llvm-gcc on Intel x86_64 2-way 4-core machine, > i got the following errors: this is the second report of this, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3710 > gcc version 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14) gcc 4.1 has endless problems compiling LLVM, see http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Here's an extract: GCC 4.1.1: GCC fails

Am Freitag, den 21.03.2008, 06:56 -0700 schrieb Shantonu Sen: > I recommend you don't parse version strings. In fact I switch the > check to use AC_COMPILE precisely for the reason that gcc --version is > totally unreliable and vendor specific. For example, what's the > regular expression that tells you what the GCC version is: > i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC)

While attempting to compile llvm-gcc on Intel x86_64 2-way 4-core machine, i got the following errors: configure line i used is: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/configure --enable-llvm=`pwd`/../../llvm-2.5 --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-languages=c,c++ --host=x86_64-redhat-linux --build=x86_64-redhat-linux --disable-multilib --disable-shared Errors: lvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/gcc/.

I recommend you don't parse version strings. In fact I switch the check to use AC_COMPILE precisely for the reason that gcc --version is totally unreliable and vendor specific. For example, what's the regular expression that tells you what the GCC version is: i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5470) (Aspen 5470.3) Per the rest of this thread, you can't

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Scott, > >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> > this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler.  However so many >> > compilers miscompiled this that a workaround was committed to svn.  So you >> > may want to check

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ok folks, > > > > I wrote up the general high-level thoughts I have about stateful AA in a > separate thread. But we need to sort out the completely and horribly broken >

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > I don't see anything wrong with FileCheck either. > > However looks here, that .bc file is in the *source* tree, not the obj tree: > not llvm-dis < /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/test/Bitcode/null-type.ll.bc > /dev/null |& grep "Invalid MODULE_CODE_FUNCTION record" I think that's there from

>From a cached version of the Getting Started Guide, I have found: "GCC 3.4.4 (CodeSourcery ARM 2005q3-2): this compiler miscompiles LLVM when building with optimizations enabled. It appears to work with "make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 OPTIMIZE_OPTION=-O1" or build a debug build." I'm trying that now. -Puyan On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Rajika Kumarasiri <rajika at

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:57:04 -0600 greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) wrote: > Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > > > I don't see anything wrong with FileCheck either. > > > > However looks here, that .bc file is in the *source* tree, not the > > obj tree: not llvm-dis > > <

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:22 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > Okay. 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. FWIW, I returned to 3.4.6 when 4.1.1 didn't work out for me. I haven't tried 4.1.2. I'm waiting for the dust to settle on 4.2 Reid

Hi Scott, > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler. However so many > > compilers miscompiled this that a workaround was committed to svn. So you > > may want to check out llvm and llvm-gcc from svn. Alternatively, maybe > > the patch applies to llvm 2.5 too.

Chayan Sarkar wrote: > Hi there, > > I have written a PRE pass using LLVM. How can I test my pass? Is > there any standard test-cases or bench-marks to test a pass. Please > suggest accordingly. Use the LLVM nightly test suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#testsuiterun Make a copy of an existing test like TEST.example.Makefile and modify it to run 'opt -yourpass

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler.  However so many > compilers miscompiled this that a workaround was committed to svn.  So you > may want to check out llvm and llvm-gcc from svn.  Alternatively, maybe > the patch applies to llvm 2.5 too.  I've attached it. I will try the

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. --

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

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:26:54 -0700 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:16 PM, greened at obbligato.org wrote: > > > Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> writes: > > > >> In short, I propose a intrinsic based approach which hinges on the > >> concept of a "parallel map". The immediate

Hello, Scott > Thanks, I am making some progress. The latest from svn (for llvm and > llvm-gcc) built successfully. I built everything without adjusting the > PATH, so I guess I used gcc 4.1.2. Even if you'll succeed, most probably LLVM will be miscompiled. gcc 4.1.2 is known buggy: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc --- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov.

On Oct 1, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:26:54 -0700 > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:16 PM, greened at obbligato.org wrote: >> >>> Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> writes: >>> >>>> In short, I propose a

Hi, I'm interested in finding ways to reduce code size. LLVM's MergeFunctions pass seems like a promising option, and I'm curious about its status in tree. Enabling MergeFunctions gives a 1% code size reduction across the entire iOS shared cache (a collection of a few hundred system-critical DSO's). The numbers are even more compelling for Swift code. In fact, the swift compiler

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 20:05 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > You should fix SPUTargetLowering::LowerCall to make sure there is an unbroken chain of flag ties between CopyFromReg and BRASL. At least ARM, MBlaze, and Blackfin are doing this, if you need example code. > Thanks for the tip. This got fixed in 105601. And with that, half of the problematic tests appearing with