similar to: [LLVMdev] 2.7 build fails

I'm trying to cross-compile LLVM with build=, host=target=. I'm using the following packages from Debian lenny: mingw32 4.2.1.dfsg-1 mingw32-binutils 2.18.50-20080109-1 mingw32-runtime 3.13-1 The first problem I hit was when I configured with CC, CXX, AR and RANLIB set to mingw cross-tools, but forgot to specify NM as well. This resulted in a load of warnings that scrolled off the

Hi, I'm trying to build llvm on a Solaris/Sparc machine. I get many undefined symbols during the link phase of opt. The link command being run is below. It is identical to the link command that gets run and works on an x86 host. Thanks, Tarun g++ -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/include -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt

Hi, I'm trying to build clang under MingW, but I'm getting a number of errors. Could anyone provide some hints as to what you had to do? I got some tips from http://blogs.tedneward.com/2008/02/24/Building+LLVM+On+Windows+Using+MinGW32.aspx, but using the newer packages, as it's a bit old. The ./configure seems to run without errors. The first run of make aborts with errors like:

Hello llvm-dev, I'm working on some out-of-process reflection support for Swift and I'd like to switch over some of my memory management to context-based with a bump-pointer allocator. I hit a linker error that `grow_pod` was missing. Eventually, some of this code will get linked into the Swift runtime and we are trying to avoid directly linking LLVM into the runtime to keep the size

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > We currently use two different techniques to get whole libraries > included into the .so. On Linux (gnu ld and gold), we pass > --whole-archive, while on OSX we pass -all_load. Which ld does FreeBSD > use? If you can rearrange tools/llvm-shlib/Makefile until it works for > you and send us a patch, we can probably get it working for llvm-2.8. > ld on

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> wrote: > Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >> We currently use two different techniques to get whole libraries >> included into the .so. On Linux (gnu ld and gold), we pass >> --whole-archive, while on OSX we pass -all_load. Which ld does FreeBSD >> use? If you can rearrange tools/llvm-shlib/Makefile until it

On 04/28/2010 11:42 AM, Yuri wrote: > Looks like this is platform dependent. Yep, works fine here on Debian 5.0/x86_64 with gcc 4.3.2. Did you build with make REQUIRES_RTTI=1 which is required as of LLVM 2.7 to get RTTI for LLVM symbols? -- Pekka

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > I just tried it again on trunk (not 2.7) on OSX 10.5, and it works. > What platform are you on? Does it work with another version of gcc? > Looks like this is platform dependent. libLLVM-2.7.so created has size only 4145 bytes and all llvm symbols are missing. It's empty because there are no .o modules included into it, only libraries through -l options

Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > On 04/28/2010 11:42 AM, Yuri wrote: >> Looks like this is platform dependent. > > Yep, works fine here on Debian 5.0/x86_64 with gcc 4.3.2. > > Did you build with make REQUIRES_RTTI=1 which is required > as of LLVM 2.7 to get RTTI for LLVM symbols? > No. If this is a hack to get the command 'g++ -shared -o libLLVM-2.7.so -lXXX -lXXX

After I manually modified .ll file deleting %0 I am getting this error from llvm-as: lvm-as: my.ll:43:3: error: instruction expected to be numbered '%0' %1 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 8) nounwind ; <i8*> [#uses=1] ^ So now I have to also rename all other %<NUM> variables? Why llvm is so strict with naming? I think it should just accept whatever names are there

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> wrote: >> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >>> >>> We currently use two different techniques to get whole libraries >>> included into the .so. On Linux (gnu ld and gold), we pass >>> --whole-archive, while on

Török Edwin wrote: > Are you using 2.6 or 2.7, 32-bit or 64-bit? > I use 2.7 on i386. lli has debug asserts enabled, but I guess this shouldn't matter for JIT code speed. jit: 11.32 real exe: 7.64 user Both have -O3 option. Speed should be the same. Yuri

When I enabled this option I am getting errors, see below. Is there any way to fix this? There should be an option to have most of the code in shared library. Yuri --- error log using gcc-4.5.0 on 4 cpus with configure options: --enable-assertions --enable-optimized --enable-shared --prefix=/usr/local/llvm --- llvm[2]: Compiling llc.cpp for Release build gmake[2]: Entering directory

--enable-shared was _created_ in 2.7. If you were passing it in 2.6 or earlier, it wasn't doing what you expected. I just tried it again on trunk (not 2.7) on OSX 10.5, and it works. What platform are you on? Does it work with another version of gcc? On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> wrote: > > When I enabled this option I am getting errors, see below.

I am new to LLVM and couldn't find any llvm-user list, so I am posting my user question here, sorry. I am trying to create a simple "puts" call accepting the static string, with the code below. The last line (CallInst::Create) fails with an assert: "Calling a function with a bad signature!" Because the type of function is void(u8*) and the argument supplied is:

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> wrote: > Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >> I just tried it again on trunk (not 2.7) on OSX 10.5, and it works. >> What platform are you on? Does it work with another version of gcc? >> > > Looks like this is platform dependent. libLLVM-2.7.so created has size only > 4145 bytes and all llvm symbols are

Greetings, I seem to be butting up against what may be a Vista-related issue for mingw-based compilation. I did some googling earlier today and found these steps: http://blogs.tedneward.com/2008/02/24/Building+LLVM+On+Windows+Using+MinGW32.aspx, which I followed. But try as I did, I couldn't seem to get past the "tools" section of the compilation. It seemed to always have

In SmallVector.h: class SmallVectorBase { *protected:* void *BeginX, *EndX, *CapacityX; *protected:* SmallVectorBase(void *FirstEl, size_t Size) : BeginX(FirstEl), EndX(FirstEl), CapacityX((char*)FirstEl+Size) {} In StringMap.h: class StringMapImpl { *protected:* // Array of NumBuckets pointers to entries, null pointers are holes. // TheTable[NumBuckets] contains a sentinel value

Hi If I am linking a large library with my app, is there a way I can eliminate all the unused functions used in the library as part of the linking ? thanks shrey

shreyas krishnan wrote: > Hi > If I am linking a large library with my app, is there a way I can > eliminate all the unused functions used in the library as part of the > linking ? > If you are talking about static libraries (.a), this is done automatically by linker. You shouldn't have to worry about this. If you are talking about the shared library (.so) -- it will be