similar to: [LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 4000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online"

2007 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build with the > header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). Putting "#include > <stdint.h>" in include/llvm/BasicBlock.h (llvm) and in > "include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h" (frontend) resolved this. Ok. This is now fixed on the release branch. Thanks! > Also, I got linking
2007 May 18
2
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
Hi, Op 18-mei-07, om 10:10 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: >> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build >> with the header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). >> Putting "#include <stdint.h>" in include/llvm/BasicBlock.h (llvm) >> and in "include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h" (frontend)
2007 May 17
0
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Bram Adams wrote: > About LTO support: the new release documents don't mention anything about > this. Also, the relevant bugzilla entries I could find date back to March > 2007. Has any progress been made recently in adding LTO to the Darwin linker > and/or GNU binutils? I'll mention this in the release notes. The darwin linker in 10.5 (not yet
2007 May 29
4
[LLVMdev] Code generation issues
Hi, Today I managed to link ioquake3, but generating a binary does not work yet. 1) On OSX, I get: Error: Code generator does not support intrinsic function 'llvm.ppc.altivec.lvsl'! when I do: llc file.bc -march=c -o file.c 2) On Linux X86, llc does not give any problem, but I get this while compiling the generated .c file: error: unknown register name 'S' in
2007 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
Hi Bram, On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 18:12 +0200, Bram Adams wrote: > Hi, > > Op 18-mei-07, om 10:10 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: > > >> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build > >> with the header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). > >> Putting "#include <stdint.h>" in
2007 May 23
0
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Bram Adams wrote: > Op 19-mei-07, om 00:39 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: >> Anton is right. You should be able to use -fno-builtins to disable >> this. > > Thanks, that did the trick. > > Some final remarks (my app works again :-)): > * llvm.va_start and similar intrinsics now have an i8* arg instead > of an sbyte** ok >
2007 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
Hi, Op 19-mei-07, om 00:39 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > Anton is right. You should be able to use -fno-builtins to disable > this. Thanks, that did the trick. Some final remarks (my app works again :-)): * llvm.va_start and similar intrinsics now have an i8* arg instead of an sbyte** * For some reason the Arguments of a Function are now circularly linked,
2007 May 23
1
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >On Sun, 20 May 2007, Bram Adams wrote: >> On a related note: while using llvmc I have some test cases where the >> following error now pops up on Linux X86 (not on OSX): >> >> <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! >> llvmc:
2007 May 18
1
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
Hello, Bram > * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts > ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the > circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions > occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually > replacing the puts-calls by a printf-call is not
2007 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts >> ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the >> circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions >> occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually >> replacing the
2012 Sep 27
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM build fails using gcc-4.7.0 and -std=c++11 flags
I just updated my llvm sources (revision 164794.) and I see the error, "overriding non-deleted function" when building with gcc 4.7.0 and passing -std=c++11. /usr2/sidneym/llvm/tools/install/bin/c++ -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_DEBUG -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -std=c++11 -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -I/local/scratch/llvm-tmp/build/lib/VMCore
2007 Sep 19
4
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:41:38PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > The "make check" produced: > === Summary === > > # of expected passes 2209 > # of unexpected failures 41 > # of expected failures 5 > gmake[1]: *** [check-local] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emil/ll/objdir-llvm/test' > gmake: ***
2012 Sep 28
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM build fails using gcc-4.7.0 and -std=c++11 flags
I've fixed this specific error in r164813. Please let me know if there are more behind it. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Sid Manning <sidneym at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I just updated my llvm sources (revision 164794.) and I see the error, > "overriding non-deleted function" when building with gcc 4.7.0 and passing > -std=c++11. > >
2007 May 18
1
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
Hi, Op 18-mei-07, om 18:40 heeft Reid Spencer het volgende geschreven: > What goes wrong? Everything's fine now. Forgot to look at Tanya's changes (#include "llvm/Support/DataTypes.h") :-)... > Glad you figured that out. The build guidelines for llvm-gcc are in > README.LLVM at the top level of the llvm-gcc source tree. It > recommends > making links. Some
2007 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt Here's an ARM test that cores: $ llvm-as < /home/emil/ll/llvm-2.1/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-01-19-InfiniteLoop.ll | llc -march=arm -mattr=+v6,+vfp2 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb `which llc` llc.core [...] (gdb) where #0 0x0853d606 in
2007 May 29
0
[LLVMdev] Code generation issues
Hi Bram, Could you submit bug reports for all of these problems? Thanks! -bw On 5/29/07, Bram Adams <bram.adams at ugent.be> wrote: > Hi, > > Today I managed to link ioquake3, but generating a binary does not > work yet. > > > 1) On OSX, I get: > > Error: Code generator does not support intrinsic function > 'llvm.ppc.altivec.lvsl'! > > when I
2012 Jun 27
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Moving DebugInfo module to VMCore
Hi all, This patch, though large, simply moves lib/Analysis/DebugInfo.cpp to lib/VMCore/DebugInfo.cpp and include/llvm/Analysis/DebugInfo.h to include/llvm/DebugInfo.h. Why? Because this module has nothing to do with analysis. It simply defines an interface to the debug info MDNodes. In fact, the lib/VMCore/AsmWriter.cpp file performs a layering violation, because it calculates the DWARF tag
2009 Jul 02
3
[LLVMdev] Get identifier for unnamed temporary
Is there a way through the Value class to get the identifier for an unnamed temporary? Or alternatively, could someone point me to the code where temporaries are assigned sequential numbers as identifiers so I can better understand this issue? Thanks, Scott
2006 Aug 16
2
[LLVMdev] Weird behavior of llvm-ld
Hi, Op 16-aug-06, om 18:59 heeft Reid Spencer het volgende geschreven: >> llvm-ld: warning: Supposed library 'SOME_OTHER_LIB' isn't a library. > > The -l option is used to link libraries into the resulting executable. > I'm hoping "SOME_OTHER_LIB" is not the actual name and you're just > paraphrasing the actual command line. Note that native
2006 Aug 18
2
[LLVMdev] Weird behavior of llvm-ld
Hi, Reid Spencer wrote: >> That's interesting! So, one only needs to add a 2-arg function called >> RunOptimizations to the module (can't check it right now)? >> > > That is correct. That function and only that function will be called. > What happens in that function is up to you :) > So, I tried this the last two days, but to no avail. I first