similar to: [LLVMdev] clang installation failure

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:36:18AM -0800, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Currently the replacement of allocation routines is based on creating > a new malloc zone and a new CFAllocator (because the allocator > replacement is done later than it could be, we must have both). This > makes us depend on CoreFoundation to call CFAllocatorSetDefault. > Because of some bugs in CF which start

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 05:42:15PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > +kremenek, ganna > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > > > asanin favor of OSX's

+kremenek, ganna On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > > asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. > > So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. > So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing mach_override. > > --kcc Kostya, Unless I am misunderstanding the code in asan/asan_intercepted_functions.h,

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > Current llvm svn fails make check when built for only x86... Ah, right, need to put that behind a "requires"... hrm. (or I could just drop it & let the machines that are armv5 native catch this) > > [100%] Running the LLVM regression tests > FAIL: LLVM ::

I hope this is addressed by r177545 - please let me know if this test is still failing for you after that change. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> Current llvm svn fails make check when built for only x86... > > Ah, right, need to put

Current llvm svn fails make check when built for only x86... [100%] Running the LLVM regression tests FAIL: LLVM :: DebugInfo/inlined-vars.ll (3994 of 7466) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: DebugInfo/inlined-vars.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: -- /sw/src/fink.build/llvm33-3.3-0/llvm-3.3/build/bin/./llc -O0 <

The fix is under review. --kcc On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > At 167457 on x86_64-apple-darwin12, I am seeing a slew of > AddressSanitizer failures due to > unresolved symbols such as... > > Exit Code: 1 > Command Output (stderr): > -- > Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: > "___asan_init",

Fix is in (r167460). On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > The fix is under review. > > --kcc > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > >> At 167457 on x86_64-apple-darwin12, I am seeing a slew of >> AddressSanitizer failures due to >> unresolved symbols

Paul, could you take a look at this? Maybe it would make more sense for the in-progress optnone work to be omitted from the release? -- Sean Silva On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On x86_64-apple-darwin12, I am seeing regressions in the current > llvm 3.4 release branch during 'make check'... > > Scanning

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:29:07PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On 04/10/2010 08:01 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > > > bash-3.2$ GCC=/sw/bin/gcc-4 CC=gcc-4 CXX=g++-4 CFLAGS=-I/sw/include CXXFLAGS=-I/sw/include LLVM_CONFIG=/sw/lib/llvm/bin/llvm-config make > > g++-4 -c -I/sw/lib/llvm/include -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -MD

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:59:25PM +0400, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Jack, > > Where do the "-isysroot > /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk > -mmacosx-version-min=10.8" flags come from? I don't see them in your > CMake invocation - perhaps they're added via $CC or $CFLAGS? Is this > being done

I've created fink packaging for a building the llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2 svn pulls under fink on Mac OS X. Hopefully the fink info script and patch should be clear enough for some comments on my build approach. The llvm-gcc and llvm-g++ compilers seem okay so far. The llvm-gfortran compiler seems to always spew a warning.. WARNING: 128-bit integers not supported! ...even when just compiling a

+Bob Wilson I don't know if this is a recent Apple regression, or if it's now catching something which had always been invalid. -bw On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:46:47PM +0400, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > > This

Jack, Where do the "-isysroot /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk -mmacosx-version-min=10.8" flags come from? I don't see them in your CMake invocation - perhaps they're added via $CC or $CFLAGS? Is this being done on purpose? I can add a CMake step checking whether the current CFLAGS/LDFLAGS allow to build an

On x86_64-apple-darwin12, I am seeing regressions in the current llvm 3.4 release branch during 'make check'... Scanning dependencies of target check-llvm [100%] Running the LLVM regression tests FAIL: LLVM :: CodeGen/Generic/isel-optnone.ll (1362 of 9265) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: CodeGen/Generic/isel-optnone.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: --

At 167457 on x86_64-apple-darwin12, I am seeing a slew of AddressSanitizer failures due to unresolved symbols such as... Exit Code: 1 Command Output (stderr): -- Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "___asan_init", referenced from: _asan.module_ctor in shared-lib-test-so-moBSTe.o "___asan_register_globals", referenced from: _asan.module_ctor in

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 06:11:16AM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Good day! > > > > This is just a reminder that branching for the 3.4 release will occur at > this time: > > > > Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November > 19, 2013 at 3:00:00

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:46:47PM +0400, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > This file is for configure+make build, not CMake, so I'm not sure why > > it's being included into your build (these failures aren't > > reproducible for me). > > Can you please list the exact steps you're doing to build

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth