similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 64, Issue 6

That's not an example, that's a tutorial, and an incomplete one at that. However I did find the Kaleidoscope example in the subversion repository head. Any clue as to why when we attempt to follow the very simple example in the llvm-2.5 release docs/tutorial/JITTutorial1.html we construct a module state that verifies but then when we ask it to emit, we get a stack overflow from LLVM? Is

On Monday 15 February 2010 20:46:52 Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > BTW, how sure are we that all these are gcc issues and not some incorrect > > code somewhere that triggers undefined behavior? > > Medium sure? :) > > I spent a little while hunting this particular bug, and it acted very > much like a compiler bug. I never narrowed it down to a test case, > though. Is there

I recommend you don't parse version strings. In fact I switch the check to use AC_COMPILE precisely for the reason that gcc --version is totally unreliable and vendor specific. For example, what's the regular expression that tells you what the GCC version is: i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5470) (Aspen 5470.3) Per the rest of this thread, you can't

>> I just forgot to ./configure with CC=gcc-4.2 CXX=g++-4.2, getting the >> (broken-for-LLVM) gcc-4.1 as a compiler. >> The error message that I got was this: >> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jo/llvm-wrk/lib/VMCore' >> make[1]: *** No rule to make target >> `/home/jo/llvm-wrk/Release/bin/tblgen', needed by >>

Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:44 -0700 schrieb Tanya M. Lattner: > Its not just a matter of checking major/minor versions. It also depends on > the target and in some cases the OS. > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc > > So for example, GCC 3.3.3 on Suse or GCC 3.4.0 on linux/x86 > (32-bit) has issues. Is it easy to check these kinds of things? uname

Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:44 -0700 schrieb Tanya M. Lattner: > >> Its not just a matter of checking major/minor versions. It also depends on >> the target and in some cases the OS. >> http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc >> >> So for example, GCC 3.3.3 on Suse or GCC 3.4.0 on linux/x86 >> (32-bit) has

Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:27 -0700 schrieb Shantonu Sen: > llvm's ./configure already does that for gcc < 3. > > What are valid versions? Exactly 4.0 and 4.2? 4.0 and >=4.2? There's a list at http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc so there is a reasonable basis. The list isn't comprehensive, of course, and will likely grow in the future. OTOH

Where exactly is this mythical Kaleidoscope example? I have llvm 2.5 installed. examples dsw$ ls BrainF Fibonacci Makefile ParallelJIT CMakeLists.txt HowToUseJIT ModuleMaker > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:40:44 +0100 > From: Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM-Kaleidoscope tutorial > > 2009/10/3 Remy Demarest <remy.demarest at

On Oct 4, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Daniel Wilkerson wrote: > Where exactly is this mythical Kaleidoscope example? I have llvm > 2.5 installed. http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/ -Chris

Am Freitag, den 21.03.2008, 06:56 -0700 schrieb Shantonu Sen: > I recommend you don't parse version strings. In fact I switch the > check to use AC_COMPILE precisely for the reason that gcc --version is > totally unreliable and vendor specific. For example, what's the > regular expression that tells you what the GCC version is: > i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC)

I was looking at mod_trace (http://prefetch.net/projects/apache_modtrace/index.html ) and playing with getting it to compile on OS X. When building for x86_64 with -arch x86_64 we get bad instructions generated: gcc -o foo -arch x86_64 foo.c /var/folders/rV/rV1x2DafFr0R6tGG+1bbk++++TM/-Tmp-//ccnykQ1o.s:11:bad register name `%%esi)'' Using gcc -S I can definitely see we are not

Hi Again, Sorry to keep posting about this. There seems to be a lot of confusion trying to get compatibility with various Mac architectures and OS. Sven Peters was able to compile on an intel Mac running leopard using >patch -p1 <patches/flags.diff >patch -p1 <patches/crtimes.diff >./configure CFLAGS="-isysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk -arch ppc -arch

Hello, I''m having some issues building r190 on Leopard (10.5.1): $ rake (in /Users/johan/temp/superredcloth) ragel superredcloth_scan.rl | rlgen-cd -G2 -o superredcloth_scan.c ragel superredcloth_inline.rl | rlgen-cd -G2 -o superredcloth_inline.c /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby extconf.rb checking for main() in -lc... yes creating Makefile make gcc -I.

Hi, The link "Broken versions of GCC and other tools" on http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html points to #brokengcc, where it should point to http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc I guess. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

>> I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 >> and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? > > The fine documentation says: > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Yes. But what version is recomended and tested ? Any post 4.1.1 ? Aaron

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:48 AM, Lian Cheng wrote: > Compilation error output is attached. > > Seems that G++ 3.4.5 fails to pick the right specialization version of getExprLocImpl() function in lib/AST/Expr.cpp. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 > and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? The fine documentation says: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

Hi, Ben > Hi, I've just tried out version 2.4, and it doesn't work for me in > situations where 2.3 seems fine. The current trunk code appears to have > the same problem. > Value still in symbol table! Type = 'i32' Name = 'tmp3.3' It seems, that you're using gcc, which is known to be broken http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -- With best

Hi, > gcc: gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33) most likely the version of gcc you are using is broken. See http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Ciao, Duncan.

Hello, Scott > Thanks, I am making some progress. The latest from svn (for llvm and > llvm-gcc) built successfully. I built everything without adjusting the > PATH, so I guess I used gcc 4.1.2. Even if you'll succeed, most probably LLVM will be miscompiled. gcc 4.1.2 is known buggy: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc --- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov.