similar to: [LLVMdev] Duplicate file name

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

Hi All, here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is *active*. The User* inside of Use is even sometimes NULL, but the algorithm is able to recover it. If there is a non-null User* present, then I am asserting that it equals the computed value. I did not receive feedback for the algorithmic part yet, so I

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to configure it? Whenever I have had problems building llvm-gcc, I usually have to delete my install and obj dir, make clean llvm, and start over from the top. Its a pain, but it works usually. -Tanya > >

Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

I do not consider PR1546 closed just yet. What I mentioned in the PR was only two of ca. 140 Solaris failures. Most of them complain that llc cannot choose between C and MSIL output formats. The below prototypical patch corrects this type of failure. Is this the right way of handling it? Why does llc only fail on Solaris and not on Darwin? After I understood this problem I am happy to commit

Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. > But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Well, it's support is not complete ... The integrated assembler supports all general-purpose instructions the compiler itself generates, but has only partial support for all the rest, in particular nearly no

Hi all, here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to - header changes - implementation changes - applications This at the moment does not contain the description how the size of the Use class will be reduced from 16 to 12 bytes, I am going to send that in a separate patch. This wave primarily consists of changes that are

heisenbug wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test >>> passes with this patch :) >>> >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and >> following a readme? >> > > > After

On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > heisenbug wrote: > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > >>> passes with this patch :) > > >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Hi all, I have two llvm projects in different stages of execution: 1) Parallel "make check". Modelled after the successful clang "make test -jX" experiment, I am now bold enough to sink my teeth into the LLVM test suite. I have a prototype implementation, along the same lines, ready. 2) <class Use> size reduction. After some conversation with Chris I think we are ready

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:32:47 +0100 Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > at my paid job I am pushing the Clang/LLVM combo into evaluation (we > currently use a gcc3.4 generation toolchain). Great! Since we produce for the > embedded domain we need a reliable > host (i.e. simulation i686) / target (PPC) dual setup. To this end I > almost succeeded

Hi PPC folks, as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Just curious, Gabor

On Apr 21, 10:59 pm, "Tanya M. Lattner" <to... at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > > Hi all, > > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? > > It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to > configure it? This is what gcc/config.log remembered: $ /Users/ggreif/llvm-gcc/gcc/configure