similar to: [LLVMdev] Another bad binutils?

384 MBytes RAM ----- Original Message ---- > From: mike-m <mikem.llvm at gmail.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Sent: Wed, May 5, 2010 3:32:20 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Another bad binutils? > > How much RAM have you allocated to vbox guest? --mike-m On > 2010-05-05, at 4:12 PM, Samuel Crow wrote: > After waiting through >

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

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

Before MC, which changes this, LLVM didn't have the ability to assemble its own output into an object file. There is a special code path for the JIT, though, which allows the JIT to encode instructions in memory. It's the difference between being able to make "native code" and being able to make an object file or executable. The plan for the future (maybe this summer?) is to

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

----- 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

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

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

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*

----- 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: > >

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

Hi again, My point is that your code could not be written in C++ at this time because the only complete compiler for C++ is LLVM-GCC. It will do little endian optimizations on your x86 box and make the resultant bitcode file not work on the ARM processor. It is possible to write an endian-agnostic bitcode file but I don't think all modern LLVM compilers support it. Also the FAQ also

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