similar to: [LLVMdev] Replacing llvm-gcc in Xcode 3.1.1 with svn version

On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > Hello all, > > I have replaced the llvm-gcc shipped with the Xcode by the latest > version and I was wondering if I have missed something... (everything > *seems* to work). > Here's what I did: Very cool! Can you please add this to the LLVM FAQ? -Chris

Hi, I don't know enough C to know for certain if this is a programmer or compiler error: In a Objective-C source file I have: . static const char sessionEntriesKVO = ' '; . Later I use that variable as a ID by taking it's address like this: [feedManager addObserver:self forKeyPath:@"sessionEntriesCount" options:0 context:&sessionEntriesKVO]; and later . if

On 15.10.2008, at 3.42, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I don't know enough C to know for certain if this is a programmer or >> compiler error: > > Hi Tatu, > > With this information it is impossible to tell if it is your fault or > llvm's fault. Please file a bug with a

On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's >> address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc >> with -O or -O0): >> >> >> #include <stdio.h> >> >> static const char test1 = 'x'; >> static const char

On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't know enough C to know for certain if this is a programmer or > compiler error: Hi Tatu, With this information it is impossible to tell if it is your fault or llvm's fault. Please file a bug with a testcase that demonstrates the problem, thanks! -Chris > > > In a Objective-C source

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's > address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc > with -O or -O0): > > > #include <stdio.h> > > static const char test1 = 'x'; > static const char test2 = 'x'; > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { >

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the compiler to fold >> the two char constants together. > True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. I don't have the C standard handy, but I would be somewhat surprised if the standard would explicitly

On 15.10.2008, at 16.43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not >> the value. > > Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can > understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining whether > this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. > Hopefully > a language

Hello, Tatu > Is that correct? I think it's just something to be aware of. Currently we're aggressively merging globals by default. Do you think it will be better to provide special flag to control this behavior? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

On Oct 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can >> understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining >> whether >> this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. >> Hopefully >> a language lawyer can chime in and say whether this transform is >>

> With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's > address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc > with -O or -O0): I can confirm that test2 is replaced with test1 everywhere using llvm-gcc from svn head. > #include <stdio.h> > > static const char test1 = 'x'; > static const char test2 = 'x'; >

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 16, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> I strongly doubt we can get away with that. > > Yeah, we agree on that one. I was just thinking about the const case. > >> Here's a more concrete version of the solution I'm proposing: we add a >> new optional marking to constant

> True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining whether this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. Hopefully a language lawyer can chime in and say whether this transform is valid or not. Ciao,

The ability to archive object files generated with -flto under LLVM.org clang 3.9.0 or 4.0svn trunk is broken against the currently shipping Xcode releases including the upcoming Xcode 8.1 GM. https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30791 $ clang-3.9 -flto -O1 -c *.i $ ar cr libtar.a paxerror.o paxexit-status.o paxnames.o rtapelib.o stdopen.o wordsplit.o xattr-at.o error: Unknown attribute kind

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The ability to archive object files generated with -flto under > LLVM.org clang 3.9.0 or 4.0svn trunk is broken against the currently > shipping Xcode releases including the upcoming Xcode 8.1 GM. > > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30791 > > $ clang-3.9

Hello, I’ve spent the past day or so attempting to get LLVM’s libraries built as a Mac OS X-style universal binary, the first step of which is to get them built for each component architecture (i386, x86_64, ppc, and ppc64). The first two are straightforward as I am working on an x86_64 Mac (running Mac OS X 10.6, which corresponds to Darwin 10), but building ppc binaries has thus far eluded me.

On Solaris 10 (SPARC & x86), I'm seeing the following error: error: Failed to allocate internet-domain X11 display socket. I tracked this down to this code change between openssh 4.7p1 and 5.0p1: *** openssh-4.7p1/channels.c Mon Jun 25 03:04:47 2007 --- openssh-5.0p1/channels.c Wed Apr 2 15:43:57 2008 *************** *** 1,4 **** ! /* $OpenBSD: channels.c,v 1.270 2007/06/25 08:20:03

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 3562 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20010214/5489bfec/attachment.bin

Dear R help I have a question on the variance of the binomial probit model. I have fitted the following model : > lmer1<-lmer(mp ~ l + op + l*op+ us_lev + bw_lev +(1|tatu) , + family = binomial(link="probit"), + method = 'Laplace', + data = matings, + msVerbose= True) > summary(lmer1) Generalized linear

On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Rob Rix wrote: >> Anyhow, Rob, best bet is to just use -arch to build everything up. lipo knows what needs to happen. > > Unfortunately that doesn’t appear to be enough; using -arch in CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) and not using --build or --host builds for x86_64 no matter what you specify for the architecture (in my case, the documented i386 and ppc). >