similar to: [LLVMdev] Building llvm using non-system gcc/binutils

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM, john blair <mailtome200420032002 at yahoo.com> wrote: > I am trying to build llvm-2.7 using non-system gcc/binutils. My gcc version is 4.1.2, and binutils is 2.17.50.0.15. I get the following errors That version of gcc is known to have issues building LLVM; see http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc . Try upgrading your gcc version. -Eli

Thanks for the reply Eli. I have the same version of gcc/binutils as my system gcc/binutils And it gets built without any errors with them. --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Building llvm using non-system gcc/binutils > To: "john blair"

Hi Eli, I tried to build llvm with gcc-4.4.3 and binutils-2.20.1. This time it failed with /build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/Release/bin/tblgen: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by /build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/Release/bin/tblgen) make[1]: *** [/build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/lib/VMCore/Release/Intrinsics.gen.tmp] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving

Hi John, > I am trying to build llvm-gcc4.2-2.6. > > My configure options are > > $ /local/tools/lin32/llvm-gcc4.2-2.6/bin/llvm-gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: i686-linux > Configured with: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.6.source/configure --prefix=/local/tools/lin32/llvm-gcc4.2-2.6 --disable-nls --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-gnu-as

I am trying to build llvm-gcc4.2-2.6. My configure options are $ /local/tools/lin32/llvm-gcc4.2-2.6/bin/llvm-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-linux Configured with: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.6.source/configure --prefix=/local/tools/lin32/llvm-gcc4.2-2.6 --disable-nls --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --target=i686-linux

Unfortunately I still have yet to successfully install llvm. On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > That's correct. Since you have everything linked as shared libraries > system dynamic linker will pick the shared library installed in the > default library location. Most probably you will need to edit > /etc/ld.so.conf and

I want to write a script to find the latest version of rpm of a given package available from a mirror for eg: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/os/x86_64/CentOS/ Is there any existing script that does this? Or can someone give me a general idea on how to go about this?

Hello, Scott > Yes, so I have read -- which is why I initially installed gcc-4.2.4. > My original post was looking for help on how to use gcc-4.2.4. Some > suggestions were made, but I was not able to get everything built. It > seems that despite attempting to configure with everything pointing to > gcc-4.2.4 (and not the system gcc 4.1.2), at some point in the build, >

Hi, I am currently working on a more or less intrusive patch (D37896), which pulls optimizations on multiplications from some back-ends, e.g., (mul x, 2^N + 1) => (add (shl x, N), x) in AArch64, into the DAGCombiner to have this optimization generic on all targets. However, running the LLVM Tests leads to 67 unexpected results. Am 19.09.2017 um 15:58 schrieb Sanjay Patel: > For the

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Even if you'll succeed, most probably LLVM will be miscompiled. gcc > 4.1.2 is known buggy: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc > Yes, so I have read -- which is why I initially installed gcc-4.2.4. My original post was looking for help on how to use gcc-4.2.4. Some

There are multiple problems/questions here: 1. Make sure you've updated trunk to the latest rev before running update_llc_test_checks.py on lea-3.ll. Ie, I would only expect the output you're seeing if you're running the script on a version of that test file before r313631. After that commit, each RUN has its own check prefix, so there should be no conflict opportunity. 2. I

Hi Sanjay, thanks for this information. I did get a little bit further with the patch. However, Hexagon gives me headaches. I tried to limit the scope of the patch to the BeforeLegalizeTypes phase and Hexagon still reaches the unreachable. Hexagon tries to split or widen a vector type for a node with custom lowering where the unreachable arises from inside TargetLowering::ReplaceNodeResults

Is VT a legal type on Hexagon? It looks like Hexagon may be setting SHL as Custom for every defined vector type. Try adding TLI.isTypeLegal(VT) too. ~Craig On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Haidl, Michael < michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > thanks for this information. I did get a little bit further with the > patch. However, Hexagon gives me headaches.

For the tests that are changing, you should see if those changes are improvements, regressions, or neutral. This is unfortunately not always obvious for x86 asm, so feel free to just post those diffs in an updated version of the patch at D37896. If the test files have auto-generated assertions (look for this string on the first line of the test file: "NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated

Hi Craig, protecting the transformation with: if (TLI.isTypeLegal(VT) && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::SUB, VT) && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::ADD, VT) && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::SHL, VT) && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::SRA, VT)) { shows the same result. Michael On 22.09.2017 07:19, Craig Topper wrote: > Is VT a legal type on Hexagon?

Hi all, I plan to turn on the new type legalization infrastructure "LegalizeTypes" by default tomorrow. This is a redesign/reimplementation of the logic currently in LegalizeDAG that turns (for example) 64 bit arithmetic on a 32 bit machine into a series of 32 bit operations. As well as being a cleaner design, it also supports code generation for arbitrary precision integers such as

Hi, I'm trying to build code for very short function and I encounter with a problem (or bug) in DAG selection algotithm. I have a node that was created in Combine(BeforeLegalizeTypes) and should be optimized in Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes). But LegalizeTypes() did not change anything and Combine(AfterLegalizeTypes) was not called. Vector legalization that comes afterwards just scalarized the

Here there is the dump: SelectionDAG.cpp:81: static bool llvm::ConstantFPSDNode::isValueValidForType(llvm::EVT, const llvm::APFloat &): Assertion `VT.isFloatingPoint() && "Can only convert between FP types"' failed. 0 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00007f7405022de5 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*) + 37 1 libLLVMSupport.so 0x00007f74050232e3 2 libpthread.so.0

Hello Anton Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:06:56 +0400 you wrote: > here it is in the attachment :) Ok. Could you also send LibDeps.txt file? It should be in /obj/tools/llvm-config directory -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On Oct 26, 2008, at 1:03 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi all, I plan to turn on the new type legalization infrastructure > "LegalizeTypes" by default tomorrow. This is a redesign/ > reimplementation > of the logic currently in LegalizeDAG that turns (for example) 64 bit > arithmetic on a 32 bit machine into a series of 32 bit operations. > As well > as being a