similar to: [LLVMdev] problems configuring LLVM with gold plugin

If I remove this code, diff --git a/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp b/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp index 46a5f46..a8978d5 100644 --- a/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp +++ b/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp @@ -428,8 +428,6 @@ getMinVisibility(GlobalValue::VisibilityTypes A, return A; if (B == GlobalValue::HiddenVisibility) return B; - if (A == GlobalValue::ProtectedVisibility) - return A;

I tried to build the gold plugin and receive the errors posted below. I checked out the gold plugin using "cvs -z 9 -d :pserver:anoncvs at sourceware.org:/cvs/src co src," as documented on llvm.org. Is that version bleeding edge and perhaps not stable? The first errors have to do with the libtool version. I have libtool 2.2.6 on my system, which is what the README-maintainer-mode

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+. The version of gcc I have on the machine is 4.0.2. I tried

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I checked llvm-gcc 4.0 out from svn yesterday and am compiling it on 3 > different machines. I was able to compile it on 2 of the machines, but > the compilation failed on the third machine with the errors below. The > machine that the compilation failed on is running Fedora Core 4. The > processor is a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor

Chris, I'm a little confused. I am experiencing a crash when compiling the llvm-gcc frontend. According to the bugpoint documentation, bugpoint is used to debug "optimizer crashes, miscompilations by optimizers, or bad native code generation," which seems like it implies that the frontend compiles. Also, the http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html documentation seems to

I am trying to upgrade my code to use the latest version of llvm from svn. Whenever I include "llvm/ADT/HashExtras.h", I get error messages like the following. Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks for any help. llvm[1]: Compiling Aux.cpp for Debug build (PIC) In file included from /home/lefever/work/memrep/src/compiler/include/Aux.h:4, from Aux.cpp:1:

I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in > order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking > llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. > However, there were several post later that said that

How do I acquire that version of DSA that you've updated to mainline cvs? Do I still check out llvm-poolalloc, or is there a way to only check out DSA? Patrick Meredith wrote: > I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. > > On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >> What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in

I don't follow what you mean - gcc doesn't ignore const and llvm doesn't deviate from gcc nor from the relevant language standards. Note that if you declare a global as const that we do capture this in the ir - what specifically do you want? Please provide an example. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, "Ryan M. Lefever"

What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. However, there were several post later that said that changes should not be made to the release_19 branch. At any rate, I've not seen any update on which versions of llvm and

I don't mean to be a pain, but I was thinking about this a bit more. Does gcc ignore the const keyword? If not, why has LLVM chosen to deviate from gcc with respect to the const keyword? If so, then why do we bother using const in LLVM API code? I'm just curious and wanted to understand the thinking behind not preserving const. Thanks, Ryan Chris Lattner wrote: > This property

I am trying to make and install a version of llvm that I check out of cvs last night. When I configured LLVM, I set the prefix to a directory inside my home directory. However, when I did a make install I got the following errors: llvm[3]: Installing Debug Bytecode Archive /lib/libc.a /usr/bin/install: cannot create regular file `/lib/libc.a': Permission denied make[3]: ***

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

Does llvm-gcc support the -fPIC option? I am using LLVM on both 32 bit linux and 64 bit linux, if that matters. Regards, Ryan -- Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~lefever/index.html]

I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to exist. Has it purposely been removed? ------------------------------------ llvm_optimized/include ../../llvm-gcc-4.0/gcc/llvm-backend.cpp -o llvm-backend.o In file included from

As a follow up, if I first convert x.bc to a c file using llc -march=c -o x.c x.bc, and then I use normal gcc to convert x.c to an executable, f() remains a global symbol. Is llvm-nm incorrectly converting the global symbols to local symbols? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I have a bitcode file x.bc. When I run llmv-nm on x.bc, it shows that a > function f(), that I've written, is