similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-config

Tanya M. Lattner dixit: >LLVMers, > >The 2.4 pre-release (v2) is available for testing: >http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.4/ Is it correct that there is no matching clang distfile? A checkout of clang r58548 does not build with the prerelease, seems to require a newer version of llvm-current. (But then, maybe it’d be best anyway if I port llvm-current to MirBSD, because it’ll be easier

Duncan Sands dixit: >Can you bootstrap llvm-gcc (configure with --enable-bootstrap)? Nope, probably because it uses the host C++ compiler instead of the one built in stage1 during stage2: /usr/ports/lang/llvm-gcc/w-llvm-gcc4.2-58935-1/llvm-gcc4.2/host-i386-ecce-mirbsd10/prev-gcc/xgcc -B/usr/ports/lang/llvm-gcc/w-llvm-gcc4.2-58935-1/llvm-gcc4.2/host-i386-ecce-mirbsd10/prev-gcc/

Hello, I’m trying the following thing: • build and install llvm with mgcc (system compiler) • build and install llvm-gcc with mgcc • build llvm with llvm-gcc • deinstall llvm(old), install llvm(new) • build llvm-gcc with llvm-gcc(old) • deinstall llvm-gcc(old), install llvm-gcc(new) However, I have the problem that the llvm-gcc(new) does not work: after it is compiled, it tries to build libgcc2

Daniel M Gessel dixit: >Wouldn't Clang be a good option to generating unoptimized LLVM IR? More like broken ;-) sometimes at least. >On Nov 28, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> They are not really done by LLVM, because no optimizations are done >> on the >> LLVM IR. They are done by llvm-gcc, a front-end to LLVM: llvm-pcc, anyone? :þ //mirabilos --

Dixi quod… >Like I said, I’m using r58565 for both llvm and clang (now). Must have been broken, as r58935 for both works. I’ve even fixed some system headers for clang now, and mksh – http://mirbsd.de/mksh – builds fine and passes the regression tests (with the Xcode version, about 83% of it failed, back then). Now up to llvm-gcc *sigh*… //mirabilos -- Sometimes they [people] care too

Anton Korobeynikov dixit: >> Any suggestions? >Please do read http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html about correct >way of building clang. Oh, I did. I took LLVM and Clang from the very same SVN revision even, placed clang in llvm/tools/ and built. This has worked on GNU/Linux for me once, but clang-current seems to rely on things not yet in llvm. Like I said, I’m using r58565 for

llvm-gcc bits are but a small part of it. You need to add a new target to llvm. Please read llvm documentation and llvmdev archieve for more information. Evan On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Hello, > > how would I go porting llvm-gcc-4.2 to an “unknown” platform, i.e. > MirBSD? For regular gcc, I’d have to add stuff to gcc/gcc/config/ > and patch quite

Hello, how would I go porting llvm-gcc-4.2 to an “unknown” platform, i.e. MirBSD? For regular gcc, I’d have to add stuff to gcc/gcc/config/ and patch quite some configure scripts, but seeing that llvm-gcc uses LLVM for target specific stuff, how much of this still applies? cpp defines and startup files at the least, probably, for the com- piler driver… Which dependencies does llvm-gcc-4.2 have,

LLVMers, The 2.4 pre-release (v2) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.4/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary. 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make TEST=nightly report" and send me the

Wouldn't Clang be a good option to generating unoptimized LLVM IR? Dan On Nov 28, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> It matters if the optimisations the students have to implement are >> the >> optimisations done implicitly by LLVM. > > They are not really done by LLVM, because no optimizations are done > on the > LLVM IR. They are done by llvm-gcc,

On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Luke K. Dalessandro wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Peter Shugalev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >>>> I thought llvm-gcc isn't meant to compile for specific target (at >>>> least >>>> with -emit-llvm flag I'm using). >>> No, it is not. C language is highly target-specific,

Can you bootstrap llvm-gcc (configure with --enable-bootstrap)? Ciao, Duncan.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Peter Stuge wrote: > is GPL-licensed, so a derivative of that can't be integrated into OpenSSH. A derivative of it, that exposes a general API to do tap-device-like things using stdio and command line options, could be called over its general API from OpenSSH though. Even be developed separately (this would, in fact, even help). bye, //mirabilos -- ?MyISAM tables

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Peter Shugalev wrote: > Hi, > > Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >>> I thought llvm-gcc isn't meant to compile for specific target (at least >>> with -emit-llvm flag I'm using). >> No, it is not. C language is highly target-specific, thus LLVM IR >> obtained from such sources also has the same nice 'property' > > I can see

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 10:32 +0200, Henrik Bach wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > The root of my SRC_DIR is: /home/hb/projects/src/llvm-1/llvm/ > and the root of my OBJ_DIR is: /home/hb/projects/build/FC1/llvm-1-1. > > However, the configure script seems to have stripped some of the / from the > paths: > Makefile.common:63: /home/hb/projects/buildFC1llvm-1-1/Makefile.config: No

Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in most cases these are just historical artifacts that have been with the projects since long before the new

Hi! In current LLVM CVS: llvm/projects/Stacker/Makefile.common.in llvm/projects/sample/Makefile.common.in llvm-java/llvm-java/Makefile.common.in have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.common that have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config (also $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config used in llvm-test/Makefile.config.in) and llvm/Makefile.config.in have lines: INSTALL_SH :=

yue wrote: > hi, > about [LLVMdev] another question > > thanks > > yueqiang One other thing you might want to try is to put your object tree in a directory that is *not* inside of your source tree. Currently, we don't support using separate object trees that are subdirectories of the source tree. In other words: Will work: ========== SRC_ROOT=/home/yue/llvm

Hi, On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Edd Barrett <vext01 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> 3.3 has been unsupported since late 2005 .... > > Its still the default compiler for OpenBSD, although 4.x is available > as a third party package. I will try this. Build works with gcc-4.2. Some

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Criswell, John T <criswell at ad.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Try using the --with-llvmsrc and --with-llvmobj options to explicitly set the locations of your LLVM source tree and object tree, respectively. I faintly recall seeing this error and seem to recall using these options to work around it. OK. Here are the complete steps required to successfully build the