similar to: [LLVMdev] Persistent build error

Have you fixed the problem already? I'm getting the same error on my Windows Vista x64 cygwin make Ben Laurie-3 wrote: > > I've been getting this error for the last few days: > > gmake[3]: Entering directory > `/disk1.1/tigris-slash/usr/home/ben/svn-work/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils' > llvm[3]: Compiling AddrModeMatcher.cpp for Debug build > In file included from

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM, meilon <the-fr3ak at gmx.net> wrote: > > Have you fixed the problem already? I'm getting the same error on my > Windows > Vista x64 cygwin make Nope. Still there. > > > Ben Laurie-3 wrote: > > > > I've been getting this error for the last few days: > > > > gmake[3]: Entering directory > >

This should be fixed now. I verified it with 3.4.6 on a x86 linux box. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090302/074769.html I think most of our nightly testers are using gcc4. -Tanya On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Ben Laurie wrote: > I've been getting this error for the last few days: > > gmake[3]: Entering directory >

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Tanya M. Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > This should be fixed now. I verified it with 3.4.6 on a x86 linux box. > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090302/074769.html > > I think most of our nightly testers are using gcc4. Works for me, thanks. Still a bit puzzled why this didn't break under gcc4,

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > LLVMers, > > The 2.5 pre-release2 is finally available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ > > 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

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release2 is finally available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ 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 (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run

On Aug 25, 2010, at 12:45 PM, John Thompson wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking for some feedback on the changes represented in the > attached patches, which I'll describe below. > > I'm sending this to both the LLVM and Clang list because it affects > both, though the main focus here is LLVM. > Basically, I've partially implemented some changes for choosing

Hi, I'm looking for some feedback on the changes represented in the attached patches, which I'll describe below. I'm sending this to both the LLVM and Clang list because it affects both, though the main focus here is LLVM. Basically, I've partially implemented some changes for choosing multiple alternative constraints largely on the LLVM side. The Clang change is to output the

Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get

CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

Hi all, Here: http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2003-October/000523.html Chris wrote: Chris> We certainly acknowledge that CVS has severe Chris> deficiencies, but in the near future we'll probably stay with it. Chris> Perhaps after SVN 1.0 comes out... :) so, now it is: http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ProjectNewsList ;-) P.S. any March LLVM news? best

I have experienced this with a svn 1.5 client but not with 1.4.6. Did anybody see this with a 1.4.6 (or older) client? Btw. what is the server version? Anyway this seems to be a bug in subversion. Cheers, Gabor PS: http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=79361 On Jul 1, 5:27 am, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > Devang removed the old

What is this? chan_iax2.c line 4695 (build_peer): Unable to support trunking on peer 'lamas-tigris' without zaptel timing codec_g729b.c Line 413 (load_module): Unable to initialize va stuff: -1 This is why I can't start asterisk in the background -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I have working copies of code in development on multiple places - work machine, home machine, laptop, etc. I can''t always force these machines to use the same credentials; I end up with each machine having slightly different database.yml configurations. With Subversion-Pre-Capistrano, I left the entire config directory out of Subversion (or some kind of template; see

On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The

I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the > test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 > 64 bit box. > > When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the > LLVM side? In principle, yes, I'd like to rereview if it's changed. > My

Dale, Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against today's trunk. However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in llvm/test on x86 Linux 64 today. But it's the same on an unmodified tree, so I guess I'm still okay. It passed at one point for me with these changes. -John On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com>

Actually the 2.8 fork is coming up tomorrow and I'm thinking maybe we should wait until after that. Is this something you really want to get in 2.8? On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:29 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against > today's trunk. > However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in