similar to: [LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?"

2010 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?
Hi Mike-M, Thanks for the help. It seems I'll have to just download the precompiled binaries since I only have 1 Gig in the entire system I'm using. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: mike-m <mikem.llvm at gmail.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 3:36:34 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Another bad binutils? >
2010 May 06
0
[LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?
I build llvm+clang almost every day with Ubuntu 10.04. Everything goes fine. I guess it's your VirtualBox has too little memory. On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> wrote: > After waiting through about 2 hours of hard drive spinning for Clang to > link under my Xubuntu Lucid Lynx Linux setup on VirtualBox, ld finally just > gave up trying
2010 May 05
5
[LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?
After waiting through about 2 hours of hard drive spinning for Clang to link under my Xubuntu Lucid Lynx Linux setup on VirtualBox, ld finally just gave up trying to link it. I was using CMake's build scripts on version 2.7 release of LLVM and Clang. The version of ld is (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.1-system.20100303. Can anyone confirm this problem? If needed I'll cross-post this to
2011 Jan 14
2
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
----- Original Message ---- > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>; LLVM Developers Mailing List ><llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 4:39:57 PM > Subject: Re: Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile > > Samuel Crow <samuraileumas
2011 Jan 14
2
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
Hello Óscar, This time the autotools version of LLVM trunk build with Clang trunk compiled in Debug+Asserts mode without complaint with --enable-bindings=none. I suspect this makes something fishy looking with the CMake build. Do you need logfiles from configure? Thanks again, --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> > To: Samuel Crow
2011 Jan 14
2
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
Hello Óscar, The single-threaded build failed the same place as the double threaded build failed which is the same place I just indicated in my previous post. The ../llvm/configure script version failed with OCaml building with about 600 assembler errors since I built it in AMD64 mode. (Oops.) Should I disable OCaml from the configure script and try again? Assembler error, input left in
2012 Jan 18
0
[LLVMdev] Fw: Should the Constant* pointer be declared with "const" or not?
Try to keep things on the mailing list, if possible.  That usually means hitting "reply to all".  (I forgot earlier, myself.  Sorry.) ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Stepan Dyatkovskiy <STPWORLD at narod.ru> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Should the Constant*
2011 Jan 06
1
[LLVMdev] Build problems and workarounds with CMake and XCode
----- Original Message ---- > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 5:00:00 PM > Subject: Re: Build problems and workarounds with CMake and XCode > > Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > >
2010 Jul 09
1
[LLVMdev] ValueSymbolTable's mutators are private?
Hi Chris, I was thinking that CreateValueName() was the way to add a symbol to a symbol table. Perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong. Here's what I've got: I've got a string generated by the parser which is constant. I need to add it to the symbol table so that, on starting the second pass of my compiler, I can dump all of the string constants to be generated as code. I
2009 Nov 19
1
[LLVMdev] fastcc and ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction()
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >> To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> >> Cc: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent:
2009 Dec 04
2
[LLVMdev] linking a parser bitcode
Hello Anton, Our main.bc was generated with the following command line: llvm-g++ -Illvm\include -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -c -emit-llvm -omain.bc main.cpp The amos.bc file was generated by our experimental llvm-peg parser generator whose internal workings are assembled internally using LLVM Assembly. The parser generator links a C++ library bitcode with C bindings called
2011 Jan 15
0
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > I have attached the logfiles here. I think you didn't set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE while configuring the cmake build. On your build directory, please do: make clean cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug path/to/your/llvm/source/root make If that doesn't work, show the exact command lines you used for invoking cmake and the
2011 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > This time the autotools version of LLVM trunk build with Clang trunk compiled in > Debug+Asserts mode without complaint with --enable-bindings=none. I suspect > this makes something fishy looking with the CMake build. Do you need logfiles > from configure? I'm clueless about what's happening there. The cyclic
2011 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile
Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > The single-threaded build failed the same place as the double threaded build > failed which is the same place I just indicated in my previous post. The > ../llvm/configure script version failed with OCaml building with about 600 > assembler errors since I built it in AMD64 mode. (Oops.) Should I disable > OCaml from
2011 Jun 03
0
[LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends
Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > Here's some of what it would take to make portable bitcodes in C or LLVM Assembly: A look at the work done on ANDF in the 90's may be helpful. I've only skimmed it but there's been some deep thinking about stuff like this. -Dave
2011 Jul 18
1
[LLVMdev] Fw: RTTI gone in 3.0?
Forgot to CC the list, sorry. ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RTTI gone in 3.0? > > Hi FlyLanguage, > > I thought LLVM disabled RTTI a long time ago.  It was just too slow. > > --Sam >
2010 Mar 23
1
[LLVMdev] is there any eclipse plug-in for td/ll files editing?
Hi, I've developed editor prototype for TableGen files (td). It is Eclipse plugin based on IMP project (The IDE Meta-Tooling Platform). Editor has outline, folding, coloring, go to definition, etc. As any prototype, editor has some limitations (e.g. no cross-file indexing). If there is any interest to such tool I will improve it a bit and then publish. Also considering llvm asm (ll) editing
2011 Jan 05
2
[LLVMdev] Fw: include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and autofoo builds
Whoops, phone rang and I forgot to cc to the list before I typed the message. ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> > Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 3:38:21 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and >autofoo builds > > > >
2010 Nov 10
1
[LLVMdev] Fw: llvm-gcc not compatible with gcc on a small case?
Whoops, forgot to CC: the list. > >----- Forwarded Message ---- >From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> >To: Sheng Zhou <zhousheng00 at gmail.com> >Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 9:26:51 PM >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc not compatible with gcc on a small case? > > >Hi Sheng Zhou, > > >It shouldn't compile. You have the method declared
2011 Jun 04
0
[LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends
----- Original Message ----- > From: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 6:52 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Most JVMs perform terribly. Even Sun's has had notable performance