similar to: [LLVMdev] MINGW Compiler error.

Resend On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Mark Kromis wrote: > Greetings, > > I have a compiler error that I have not been able to get through. I > usually depend upon pre-built binaries but there was none available > for the pre-release. I also try scanning the web site and mail list > but was unable to find an answer. I was getting this or similar > error with 2.3. I am

Mark Kromis wrote: > Resend > > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Mark Kromis wrote: > > >> Greetings, >> >> I have a compiler error that I have not been able to get through. I >> usually depend upon pre-built binaries but there was none available >> for the pre-release. I also try scanning the web site and mail list >> but was unable to

On Oct 14, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Kenneth Boyd wrote: > Mark Kromis wrote: >> Resend >> >> >> On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Mark Kromis wrote: >> >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have a compiler error that I have not been able to get through. I >>> usually depend upon pre-built binaries but there was none available >>> for

LLVM is not currently concept-check clean. Your MinGW is apparently configured with --enable-concept-checks, or something in your toolchain is causing -D_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS to be added to the build, and LLVM currently cannot be built this way. The errors you've posted so far are just the beginning; there are many more errors after them. Some widely-used idioms within LLVM violate standard

Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: > On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: > >> See how gcc is invoked to generate the final executable >> file. This means LLVM is an incomplete backend, >> unfortunately. >> > That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls

I am unable to build llvm-2.7 or llvm-2.8 svn with the gcc-4.3.2 that comes with OpenSolaris. $ uname -a SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris $ gcc-4.3.2 --version gcc-4.3.2 (GCC) 4.3.2 Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

I tried to compile on Windows ( using the win32/llvm.sln in MSVC Express 2008 ) the new 2.3 branch and here are the results: 1. I needed to copy the file Configure.exe.embed.manifest to Configure.exe.intermediate.manifest . This is a bug from the previous llvm release (2.2) 2. I copied the file SimplifyLibCalls.cpp from lib/Transforms/Scalar to lib/Transforms/IPO. I think the position of

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, >> thus require pulling in changes from google (license allowing), or does user >> need to have the libraries/headers pre-installed? >> > > Including it in the tree is the most reasonable thing to do. No point in > inconveniencing the user over tiny libraries

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or > a different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. > So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone > makes a patch for it? > I looked more into Boost.Test to see what's in

>> ...snip... > > Also for a note of reference, your links to the examples are the > most advanced samples. So boost can do more, thus has more weight/ > bloat behind it. > > Were the other test kits looked at? Is gtest the best solution for > the project. > > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, thus require > pulling in changes from

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > >> Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or >> a different test suite? >> I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with

On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a > different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar > with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it > just that someone makes a patch for

Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a different test suite? I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone makes a patch for it? Regards Mark Kromis On Dec 27, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Keir Mierle wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha

On Dec 27, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> >> Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, thus >> require pulling in changes from google (license allowing), or does >> user need to have the libraries/headers pre-installed? >> >> Including it in the tree is the most reasonable thing to do.

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit > test > > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is > mainly > > a

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > So are you planning on maintaining whatever test system, or just have them > as a pre-requisite. For example are you going to have the gtest > incorporated, or have them install it separately first? I was under the > impression that the user would have to install gtest first. > The current plan is to check in the unittest

I fixed my immediate problem by using a different version of gcc. Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > The offending line of code looks fine on our side, > but there could be something I'm missing. For what it is worth, I've run into problems with boost_concept_check before when using Boost.Python. Some versions of gcc worked fine, while others gave error messages relating to

Hello all, I am trying to build llvm 1.8a with gcc 4.1.1 and I get the attached error. Are there any easy workarounds or should I just try another version of gcc? -- Pertti -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: build-error URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060901/350fb4a1/attachment.ksh>

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Kellom�ki Pertti wrote: > I am trying to build llvm 1.8a with gcc 4.1.1 and I get the attached error. > Are there any easy workarounds or should I just try another version of gcc? I haven't seen this error, but I'm not using GCC 4.1.1. It would be good to track this down and either file a bug with GCC or for us to get it fixed in LLVM. The

Reports arrived indicating that the LLVM cmake-based build system is lacking some OS X specific work, which seems to be the OS of choice for quite a few LLVM developers. I know there are sites out there that offer Linux shell accounts. Is there something similar for OS X, where building LLVM would be possible? A google search turned no solid results. Or would someone donate ssh access and approx.