similar to: [LLVMdev] gfortran front end

While attempting to build llvm-gcc-4.2 from llvm-2.7 release branch, I am finding that the build fails at... c++ -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \ fortran/arith.o

The curent llvm svn (r54623) is unable to link the gfortran compiler in llvm-gcc-4.2 svn. I am getting the error... c++ -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \

Duncan, Actually, shouldn't this be just an error in the Makefile.in or Makefile.am? Why should a link line like... c++ -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \

Hi, in trying to build an llvm-gfortran on linux from today's gcc4 SVN, I get the following link errors that didn't show up on OS X. This is also using LLVM CVS from this morning. They appear to mostly be related to CodeWarrior compatibility code, but a couple are less obvious. What's the best way to fix this? I'm stuck without my powerbook for at least three weeks and I'd

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:13:27 Duncan Sands wrote: > On x86-64 linux, in stage 2, I get: > > c++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \ > fortran/arith.o

On x86-64 linux, in stage 2, I get: c++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \ fortran/arith.o fortran/array.o fortran/bbt.o fortran/check.o fortran/data.o fortran/decl.o

On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:13:27 Duncan Sands wrote: >> On x86-64 linux, in stage 2, I get: >> >> c++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict- >> prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno- >> variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition - >>

On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm >> svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that >> I get a series of warning messages... >> >> f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/

On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm > svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that > I get a series of warning messages... > > f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/ > ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran > f951: warning: command line option

Chris and Bill, I have tested the proposed patch from... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that patch in before 2.4 is release? Jack ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm svn. I find

Hi, I have a first quick patch and a question. The patch links f951 with g++ when LLVM is enabled. It's at the end of this email. I wanted to know if I should submit patches with comments around them like the "APPLE LOCAL LLVM" ones that mark the LLVM-only changes to the tree. I'd like to make it as easy as possible to apply these, so let me know any rules I should be following.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, I have a first quick patch and a question. The patch links f951 > with g++ when LLVM is enabled. It's at the end of this email. Thanks, applied! > I wanted to know if I should submit patches with comments around them > like the "APPLE LOCAL LLVM" ones that mark the LLVM-only changes to > the tree. I'd like to

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 15:48 +0400, Anton Vayvod wrote: > If you're building llvm-gcc4, you don't need the runtime > libraries, so > I'd just stick with the "tools-only" build and declare > success. If > you're building llvm-gcc3, I'd suggest you switch to > llvm-gcc4 :) > > I switched to

Hi, > I am confused. Shouldn't the gcc 4.2 front-end build behave > just like the FSF gcc build. The first stage builds the compilers > and the second stage rebuilds them using those from the first > stage? the FSF gcc requires you to build the C compiler (I think - will check). Thus a newly built C compiler is always available to build later stages. We can't reasonably

On 9/1/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > I wanted to know if I should submit patches with comments around them > > like the "APPLE LOCAL LLVM" ones that mark the LLVM-only changes to > > the tree. I'd like to make it as easy as possible to apply these, so > > let me know any rules I

Duncan, I am confused. Shouldn't the gcc 4.2 front-end build behave just like the FSF gcc build. The first stage builds the compilers and the second stage rebuilds them using those from the first stage? Jack On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 03:56:23PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > > I don't be that can be the cause because I have... > > > >

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > Chris and Bill, > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran > from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that > patch

> > If you're building llvm-gcc4, you don't need the runtime libraries, so > I'd just stick with the "tools-only" build and declare success. If > you're building llvm-gcc3, I'd suggest you switch to llvm-gcc4 :) I switched to llvm-gcc4 but when I run make from obj folder i run into folowing errors: Can't find a library with no dependencies at

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > > Chris and Bill, > > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems

Anyone know what to do about this: make[4]: Leaving directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/173.applu' make[4]: Entering directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/178.galgel' /usr/bin/f95 -w -S -O2 /opt/spec/CPU2000v1.3.1/benchspec//CFP2000/178.galgel/src/modules.f90 -o modules.c -fixed -kind=byte -dcfuns -dusty f95: unrecognized option '-kind=byte'