similar to: [LLVMdev] Couple of changes (2005 and other toolchain related)

Hola Jaap, I'm curious which version of the source are you working with? It sounds like you and I were working on the same problem yesterday, but I didn't see those particular compiler errors. (I saw a couple of other ones for which I submitted a patch). I did see errors like the ones you saw with the CVS LLVM 2.0 sources a while back, namely the missing < operator and the debug STL

On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >>> Many >>> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >>> allocations are?

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: > Could

On May 25, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Could you try this (massively hacky) patch out to see if it fixes >> your >> problem? >> >> > Alas, it didn't fix the problem: > Crumbs. I think that the analysis I told you before wasn't fully correct. I think I mentioned something

On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. Many > of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these > allocations are? I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: FAIL: /nfs/llvm/src/llvm/test/Transforms/PredicateSimplifier/ 2006-11-04-ReplacingZeros.ll Failed with

On May 26, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On May 25, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> Could you try this (massively hacky) patch out to see if it fixes >>> your >>> problem? >>> >>> >> Alas, it didn't fix the problem: >> > Crumbs. > >

Here are the two problem areas: RegisterInfoEmitter.cpp // Emit the subregister + index mapping function based on the information // calculated above. OS << "unsigned " << ClassName << "::getSubReg(unsigned RegNo, unsigned Index) const {\n" << " switch (RegNo) {\n" << " default: abort(); break;\n"; ...

On May 24, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > All, > > So far I've tried LLVM on amd64, i386, ia64 and powerpc under FreeBSD > and aside for ia64, things look pretty good for a first try. There > are 2 unexpected failures for PowerPC, which appear to be caused by > uninitialized memory. I'm still working on a fix for that (need to > brush up on my C++

All, So far I've tried LLVM on amd64, i386, ia64 and powerpc under FreeBSD and aside for ia64, things look pretty good for a first try. There are 2 unexpected failures for PowerPC, which appear to be caused by uninitialized memory. I'm still working on a fix for that (need to brush up on my C++ skills). [sidenote: In FreeBSD -current, the memory allocator initializes memory with 0xa5

Thanks for tracking this down! I can't seem to reproduce it on Linux, even with valgrind. Can you try out this patch and let me know whether it works? Nick Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 26, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On May 25, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>> On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: >>>

I'm not sure what causes this. Everything builds fine in Release mode but when I try to do a Debug build I get an error in Transforms (which causes all dependant projects to fail as well). I'm not exactly sure what causes the error, I'll try to investigate tomorrow (unless someone can figure out what it is by then). Below is the output from VS: ------ Build started: Project:

It compiles successfully with VC++ 7.1. You are apparently using VC++ 8.0, otherwise known as the Whidbey beta. The cause is no doubt due to bugs in Whidbey and this isn't the first one encountered. I'm sorry, but I cannot support beta Microsoft products (if only because I refuse to have them anywhere near my computer). All I can suggest is that you do a 'clean solution'

Hello, I'm starting to play with LLVM today and I've trouble compiling it. I'm working under Windows Vista, with the gcc from Cygwin: gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) Is LLVM supposed to work with this version of GCC (probably using the -mno-cygwin option to get a Mingw-like behavior)? The LLVM source tree is from the current SVN trunk. Compilation

Hello, Alain. > I'm starting to play with LLVM today and I've trouble compiling it. > I'm > working under Windows Vista, with the gcc from Cygwin: Oh, this seems to be killer mix :) GCC (at least native mingw32 port) has known problems being running on Vista. > Is LLVM supposed to work with this version of GCC (probably using the > -mno-cygwin option to get a

On Thu, 31 May 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote: > Our project is cross platform and on Windows we use VStudio 2005. > VStudio presents a couple of issues related around it's STL > implementation and also it's non-respect for the no-return semantic of > abort(). Ok. We want the source to be portable, so it's goodness to get these fixes into the main tree. > I've fixed

Hola LLVMers, Our project is cross platform and on Windows we use VStudio 2005. VStudio presents a couple of issues related around it's STL implementation and also it's non-respect for the no-return semantic of abort(). I've fixed it locally, but I'd like to send a patch so I don't have to do this every time I update from the source repository. So.... if I'm

Hi all, I'm hitting the following assert in PredicateSimplifier.cpp:961 : assert(!CR.isSingleElement() && "Refusing to store single element."); If I ignore it the generated code appears correct so I'm not sure what this assert is supposed to be for. Am I doing something wrong on my end or is this a superfluous assert or it really indicates an LLVM bug? The

PredicateSimplifier is a pretty interesting pass, but it doesn't look like opt invokes it at any standard -Ox level, and so I assume that llvm-gcc also does not use this pass? If that is right, I'm curious about why this is the case -- does it simply not provide enough code speedup to compensate for the increase in compile time? Also, a colleague and I (we both teach advanced

> I'm curious which version of the source are you working with? I was working on 2.0... :-) > I haven't sync'd to the SVN trunk in the last day and half. I'll do so > now and check. Don't bother then, I should have synced to CVS and made sure those fixes didn't already exist. After I posted my previous email, I found two more problems. One is a function

Anyone run into this before? I'm trying to get a Windows native build using Visual Studio of LLVM, Clang, and LLD 4.0.0. So far LLVM built successfully, but I'm getting these cryptic error messages when building Clang: Microsoft (R) Build Engine version 15.1.1012.6693 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. ClangDiagnosticsEmitter.cpp c:\program files