similar to: [LLVMdev] 2.1 compile problem with undefined symbols

Hi All, I have installed llvm-gcc4 patch to enable various llvm optimizations at -O1/-O2/-O3. This means instead of $ llvm-gcc4 --emit-llvm foo.c -o foo.bc $ opt foo.bc -o foo_optimized.bc $ llc foo_optimized.bc -o foo.o One can directly use $ llvm-gcc4 -O2 foo.c -o foo.o to get optimized foo.o - Devang + + if (optimize > 0) { + + +

I'm having some trouble getting llvm-gcc4 to compile. It's unable to compile darwin-crt3.c. It's mentioning "Complex expression. Absolute segment assumed." but I'm not sure if that's a real error message. Has anyone run into this before? I'm running on a G4 apple 10.4.8, kernel version 8.6.0. I googled around and found a bug with the same error message:

On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > I'm having some trouble getting llvm-gcc4 to compile. It's unable to > compile darwin-crt3.c. It's mentioning "Complex expression. Absolute > segment assumed." but I'm not sure if that's a real error message. Has > anyone run into this before? I'm running on a G4 apple 10.4.8, kernel > version

I created patch for DragonFly/FreeBSD-4 for prebinding, based on mdodd@'s patch for FreeBSD-5. The main difference (apart from the target platform) is that the linker needn't be patched. Rtld now uses a hash function to get an unique ID for every ELF object. This has been tested under DragonFly, but should run on FreeBSD-4 too. Feedback appreciated :) cheers simon -- /"\

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Hi Devang, > llvm-gcc-4-2 development branch is now open for development at > > llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4-2 I noticed the following difference between llvm-gcc and llvm-gcc-4-2 in gcc/llvm-linker-hack.cpp, any idea where it came from? Thanks, Duncan. @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ #include "llvm/Bitcode/ReaderWriter.h" #include "llvm/CodeGen/ScheduleDAG.h"

On 1 July 2011 13:35, Vasiliy Korchagin <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: > On 01.07.2011 12:03, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Корчагин Василий >> <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com>  wrote: >>> The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 >>> bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Duncan Sands wrote: > I noticed the following difference between llvm-gcc and llvm-gcc-4-2 > in gcc/llvm-linker-hack.cpp, any idea where it came from? This is probably a patch that got checked into llvm-gcc4 after devang started work on 4.2. Please feel free to update 4.2 to the version in 4.0. Thanks! -Chris > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > #include

Hi, I'm trying to build llvm on a Solaris/Sparc machine. I get many undefined symbols during the link phase of opt. The link command being run is below. It is identical to the link command that gets run and works on an x86 host. Thanks, Tarun g++ -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/include -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt

Hi, This is Ariel from the Rust team again. I am having another pass ordering issue. Looking at the pass manager at https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/7034870f30320d6fbc74effff539d946018cd00a/lib/Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp (the early SimplifyCfg now doesn't sink stores anymore! I can't wait until I can get to use that in rustc!) I find that the loop optimization group

Hello, I'm updating the macports build of llvm, and I'm running into an issue trying to stage llvm into a temporary directory. It builds fine, but when I try to install it into a temporary location, it insists on installing into the final location. The only reference I saw to the standard gnu DESTDIR was in the llvm.spec file, but none of the generated Makefiles have that value. Is

Here is an update about moving Polly later. 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic block "polly.merge_new_and_old" after the original loop exit block. This new basic block

On 09/25/2013 04:55 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Here is an update about moving Polly later. Hi star tan, thanks for your report. > > 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? > > It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic

Hi Erick, On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 23:31 -0800, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > Hello, > > I'm updating the macports build of llvm, and I'm running into an issue > trying to stage llvm into a temporary directory. It builds fine, but > when I try to install it into a temporary location, it insists on > installing into the final location. Okay. > The only reference I saw

I can't build llvm-gcc from working directories updated an hour ago. -Dave /tools/llvm-tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/g++ -c -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wno-unused -DTARGET_NAME=\"i686-pc-linux-gnu\" -DENABLE_LLVM

Hi all, I'm getting more impressed by LLVM day by day, but what's a bit unclear to me now is the order of optimization passes, and their performance. I think I have a pretty solid understanding of what each pass does at a high level, but I couldn't find any documentation about how they interact at a lower level. I'd like to use LLVM for generating high-performance stream

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

Hello, Having installed R 2.3 for OS X Tiger 10.4.6(PPC), i tried running the new R.app, but it hangs (spinning beachball). Moreover, i can't install the RGUI from within the R-2.3 DMG, - it tells me i must have R 10.4 installed ! (I have 10.4.6) R 2.3 runs successfully from the command line however. I tried compiling from sources, but Xcode has this error(i.e it can't locate

On 01.07.2011 12:03, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Корчагин Василий > <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, LLVMdev. >> >> The problem is that C backend doesn't support integers wider than 64 >> bits, but I need to use it on programs with wide integers in LLVM IR. My >> question is how to deny LLVM to generate wide

I have a frontend that generates some LLVM bitcode that needs to be linked with other bitcode (its runtime library), which I generate from C++ source using Clang. If I write the output of my program to disk, link it with llvm-link, and then run it with lli, everything works perfectly. But if I try to perform the linking and running steps in my main program, I get this error during