similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm gcc 4.0 not compiling

> I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the > error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past > versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to > exist. Has it purposely been removed? llvm-gcc 4.0 is no longer supported (as of 2.2): http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-February/012416.html To

I try to build llvm-gcc-4.2-2.6.source before build and install llvm-2.6, the configure is shown bellow ../llvm-gcc-4.2/configure --prefix=/home/ts/program/ --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-llvm=/home/ts/llvm/llvm-2.6 --enable-languages=c,c++ where, it is the path where llvm-2.6 source is stored, -enable-llvm=/home/ts/llvm/llvm-2.6 the "make" gave error message as bellow:

Hello llvm dev peeps I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the methods in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I thought about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become virtual. However, the base class methods return specific types while the Folding builder, for

On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > Hello llvm dev peeps > > I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to > reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the > methods > in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I > thought > about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become >

I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, and switched llvm-gcc over to use it. This class is based on feedback Tom Tromey gave on LLVM way back here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2006-April/005581.html Basically, when creating a frontend, you end up creating a lot of instructions. This has three suboptimal aspects to it: 1. The constructors

On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, > It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or 2.0 > and not cvs ? It is there: http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

Hi, > Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and > rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd > argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding > functionality for debugging purposes. this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how useful a debug flag would really be. Ciao, Duncan.

Duncan Sands wrote: >> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and >> rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd >> argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding >> functionality for debugging purposes. >> > > this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how

I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+. The version of gcc I have on the machine is 4.0.2. I tried

> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into >>> llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, >> It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or >> 2.0 >> and not cvs ? > > It is there: >

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 > different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but > the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The > machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The > processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor

Chris, I'm a little confused. I am experiencing a crash when compiling the llvm-gcc frontend. According to the bugpoint documentation, bugpoint is used to debug "optimizer crashes, miscompilations by optimizers, or bad native code generation," which seems like it implies that the frontend compiles. Also, the http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html documentation seems to

> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or 2.0 and not cvs ? Aaron

I am trying to upgrade my code to use the latest version of llvm from svn. Whenever I include "llvm/ADT/HashExtras.h", I get error messages like the following. Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks for any help. llvm[1]: Compiling Aux.cpp for Debug build (PIC) In file included from /home/lefever/work/memrep/src/compiler/include/Aux.h:4, from Aux.cpp:1:

Dominic Hamon wrote: > Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, >>> I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old >>> non-folding functionality for debugging purposes. >>> >> >> this plan

I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in > order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking > llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. > However, there were several post later that said that