similar to: [LLVMdev] XPASS forAsmBlocksComplexJumpTarget.c (-fasm-blocks)

I successfully built LLVM (r102824) with ./configure --enable-optimized --enable-targets=host --with-built-clang on Fedora 12 on an Athlon64 processor. (The clang is the 2.7 pre-built version.) However, running `make check' produced 6 unexpected failures (see below). If there's something you'd like me to do, just holler. --- Vladimir FAIL:

On 2009-08-31 08:50, Tanya Lattner wrote: > LLVMers, > > 2.6 pre-release1 is ready to be tested by the community. > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ > Hi Tanya, Here are the results for x86_64 Linux (Debian unstable): > You will notice that we have quite a few pre-compiled binaries (of > both clang and llvm-gcc). We have identified several bugs that will be > fixed in

On May 3, 2010, at 10:43 AMPDT, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: > I successfully built LLVM (r102824) with > > ./configure --enable-optimized --enable-targets=host --with-built-clang > > on Fedora 12 on an Athlon64 processor. (The clang is the 2.7 pre-built > version.) and the llvm-gcc appears to be also? > However, running `make check' produced 6 unexpected failures

on 05/03/2010 11:13 AM Dale Johannesen said the following: > On May 3, 2010, at 10:43 AMPDT, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: > > >> I successfully built LLVM (r102824) with >> >> ./configure --enable-optimized --enable-targets=host --with-built-clang >> >> on Fedora 12 on an Athlon64 processor. (The clang is the 2.7 pre-built >> version.) > > and

Hi all, When using "make check" with the DejaGNU test collection, I encounter two unexpected failures (they seem to be closely related). My question: are they well known, and if so what's the problem and how can I fix it? This is the error text I get: FAIL: /var/data/common/trunk/llvm/test/FrontendC/2008-05-19-AlwaysInline.c Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running:

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release1 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ You will notice that we have quite a few pre-compiled binaries (of both clang and llvm-gcc). We have identified several bugs that will be fixed in pre-release2, so please search the bug database before filing a new bug. If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the

On 14/07/2009, at 12.35, Harel Cain wrote: > When using "make check" with the DejaGNU test collection, I encounter > two unexpected failures (they seem to be closely related). > My question: are they well known, and if so what's the problem and how > can I fix it? > FAIL: /var/data/common/trunk/llvm/test/FrontendC/2008-05-19- > AlwaysInline.c > FAIL:

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. >> "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many >> important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". > > Wow. It's perhaps too much of a

Hi, llvm-gcc 4.2 generates warnings when I compile inline assembly code that contains used labels with -Wunused-label. The generated code seems to work yet. gcc 4.2 doesn't generate those warnings. I haven't found any bugs regarding this issue in the llvm bug database. Does anyone know if this is a known llvm issue? Is it a warning that I can ignore and does not affect the generated

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the --x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is an obvious question)? I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the output, the one thing it didn't like was

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a bug in how line info sections are referred to from the DW_TAG_compile_unit DIE. I have run

I experienced FAIL: /localtmp/astifter/llvm/llvm-svn/test/FrontendC/2007-03-27-VarLengthArray.c Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running: /nfs/a5/astifter/astifter/llvm/llvm-svn-obj/../llvm-svn-install/bin/llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -w -S /localtmp/astifter/llvm/l lvm-svn/test/FrontendC/2007-03-27-VarLengthArray.c -o - | /bin/grep {getelementptr inbounds \[0 x i32\]} child process exited abnormally

This is fixed in TOT (rev 107051 for C, 108732 for C++) On Jul 23, 2010, at 2:20 AMPDT, Alexandre Colucci wrote: > Hi, > > llvm-gcc 4.2 generates warnings when I compile inline assembly code > that contains used labels with -Wunused-label. The generated code > seems to work yet. gcc 4.2 doesn't generate those warnings. I > haven't found any bugs regarding this

On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. > "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many > important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". Wow. It's perhaps too much of a distraction, but I'm curious about the details of this. It's probably because

Hello > Does anybody have an idea of roughly how much effort is required to make > intel asm printer to be usable? If it is within weeks, probably I can give > it a try. The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". -- With best

on 05/03/2010 12:43 PM Dale Johannesen said the following: > However, running `make check' produced 6 unexpected failures >>>> (see below). If there's something you'd like me to do, just holler. >>> >>> In general, tests added after a branch forked won't pass on that branch. That accounts for these at least: >> I don't understand. These

Could you give me some examples of such constructs that are not possible to represent with MASM/NASM/FASM but are able to represent with gas? Thanks, Bengu On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Hello > > > Does anybody have an idea of roughly how much effort is required to make > > intel asm printer to be usable? If

I've tried compiling with tinycc, and assembling with yasm, and fasm even with intel syntax. I'm just wondering what available compilers and assemblers there are without trying every one of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/b779a781/attachment.html>

Hi all, I recently experienced the same issue as below with LLVM 2.8 on Mac OS 10.5.8. I can load the pass with the debug version of opt, but not the optimized version. Does anyone know what the problem is or have any suggestions for debugging this? My install went fine except for some failures during make check (Unexpected Failures: 92). All failures were in one of the following:

I made some researches how llvm, possibly with other tools, can be a full backend for compiler writers (with the final result being an executable file or dynamic linked library). Here are the results: A. Assemblers When I saw that the I86 target for llvm with the Intel syntax targets MASM (I tested with the MASM version from http://www.masm32.com/ ), it was a bad surprise for me. This is