similar to: [LLVMdev] hash extras

So, after digging around in the old llvm/ADT/hash_map, I think I discovered the problem. Now, if you want to include llvm/ADT/HashExtras.h, you have to include the hash_map h file from your system (ext/hash_map in my case) and define HASH_NAMESPACE, before you include llvm/ADT/HashExtras. It might be good to include some documentation about that for those using HashExtras. Regards, Ryan

Could someone please apply this patch to the Win32 support so that Morten and Jeff can handle the recent changes? I can't do it because I"m on the road with only email access. Thanks, Reid. -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Morten Ofstad <morten at hue.no> > To: Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> > Subject: Updated LLVM Visual Studio project files > Date: Thu,

I have spent some time examining the llvm code now, and it seems most of the hash_maps are keyed with pointers, and a few with ints. There is also one place where the keys are std::string. All these are unproblematic with the Visual Studio std_ext::hash_map since it provides hash_value functions for all these types (note, it hashes char * as pointers, not as strings - but char * is not used

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Could someone please apply this patch to the Win32 support so that > Morten and Jeff can handle the recent changes? I can't do it because > I"m on the road with only email access. I'd be happy to do it. Can someone send me the patch as an attachment off-list? -Chris > > <Tool > >

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+. The version of gcc I have on the machine is 4.0.2. I tried

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 > different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but > the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The > machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The > processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor

Chris, I'm a little confused. I am experiencing a crash when compiling the llvm-gcc frontend. According to the bugpoint documentation, bugpoint is used to debug "optimizer crashes, miscompilations by optimizers, or bad native code generation," which seems like it implies that the frontend compiles. Also, the http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html documentation seems to

I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in > order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking > llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. > However, there were several post later that said that

I am trying to upgrade to the latest version of LLVM from svn. My transformations compile correctly, but when I go to run them I get a symbol lookup error. In particular, I have 2 libraries that I compile for use with opt called libaux.so and libmyxform.so. libaux.so implements functions that are used by libmyxform.so. When I run: ------- /llvm/bin/opt

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Ryan M. Lefever <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > I am trying to upgrade to the latest version of LLVM from svn. My > transformations compile correctly, but when I go to run them I get a > symbol lookup error. In particular, I have 2 libraries that I compile > for use with opt called libaux.so and libmyxform.so. libaux.so > implements

How do I acquire that version of DSA that you've updated to mainline cvs? Do I still check out llvm-poolalloc, or is there a way to only check out DSA? Patrick Meredith wrote: > I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. > > On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >> What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in

I don't follow what you mean - gcc doesn't ignore const and llvm doesn't deviate from gcc nor from the relevant language standards. Note that if you declare a global as const that we do capture this in the ir - what specifically do you want? Please provide an example. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, "Ryan M. Lefever"

What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. However, there were several post later that said that changes should not be made to the release_19 branch. At any rate, I've not seen any update on which versions of llvm and

I don't mean to be a pain, but I was thinking about this a bit more. Does gcc ignore the const keyword? If not, why has LLVM chosen to deviate from gcc with respect to the const keyword? If so, then why do we bother using const in LLVM API code? I'm just curious and wanted to understand the thinking behind not preserving const. Thanks, Ryan Chris Lattner wrote: > This property

I am trying to make and install a version of llvm that I check out of cvs last night. When I configured LLVM, I set the prefix to a directory inside my home directory. However, when I did a make install I got the following errors: llvm[3]: Installing Debug Bytecode Archive /lib/libc.a /usr/bin/install: cannot create regular file `/lib/libc.a': Permission denied make[3]: ***

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, [iso-8859-1] Bj�rn Wennberg wrote: > I am attempting to compile the llvm distribution with the Intel Compiler 8.0 > on linux and I have some minor patches I would like to apply. In our project > we compile and run the code both on win32, together with Morten Ofstad using > the MS compiler, and on linux using the intel compiler. Great! I'm going to leave the