similar to: [LLVMdev] Bad gcc versions

I think the problem is also platform dependent, and I have been trying to come up with the known-good list of build gcc/g++ on various platforms for a long time. E.g., on Debian-32 5.0.5 (Intel): gcc-4.0.4, gcc-4.1.2 are bad, gcc-4.2.4 seems to be fine. on Debian-64 5.0.4 (Intel): the default gcc (4.3.2) seems to be fine. We may want to cover this for a wide range of possible platforms. The

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:43:48 -0600 David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > I have been tracking down various build problems and found some > more gcc versions that don't work. 4.4.x and 4.5.x seem to > be particularly bad. What are we left with then? Only 4.2 and 4.3? I only use 4.4 since a while, and it works fairly well. Are you sure it is not a bug in the regression tests

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > What are we left with then? Only 4.2 and 4.3? On SLES 10.1 at least. I think it is highly platform dependent. > I only use 4.4 since a while, and it works fairly well. On what platform? > Are you sure it is not a bug in the regression tests themselves > (strict-aliasing bugs, etc.)? No, I'm not sure. > Which

I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, The following is a full build console output. I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. Thank you Chuck sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../llbrowse -- The C compiler identification is GNU -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU -- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc -- Check

OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today, > The following is a full build console output. > I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake. > > Thank you > > Chuck > > sideshow.eecg>time

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:09:27 -0600 greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) wrote: > Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > > > What are we left with then? Only 4.2 and 4.3? > > On SLES 10.1 at least. I think it is highly platform dependent. Also keep in mind that llvm-gcc uses the 4.2 unwinder, so if you are seeing EH failures maybe the EH info generated by

I used to be able to build LLVM (from source) under Cygwin for llvm-2.2 and previous releases, but can't continue the trend since the release of LLVM 2.3. I have tried a wide variety of gcc compilers (gcc 3.4.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4 and 4.3.2) on cygwin, they all fail at the same location: C:\cygwin\home\czhao\ResearchTools\LLVM\2.3\obj2.3>make make[1]: Entering directory

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM > modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and > current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking > out and building the code under several different environments, which you

LLBrowse - a GUI tool which allows you to inspect the contents of LLVM modules - now runs on Linux and OS X, and it works with both LLVM 2.8 and current LLVM head. I've updated the docs to include instructions on checking out and building the code under several different environments, which you can read here: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llbrowse/trunk/doc/LLBrowse.html (the doc also

John, The release source code (sc-main.tar) won't compile cleanly under Debian6-i386 (gcc/g++: 4.4.5). The compiler back trace is attached. Please fix it/them and repost. Or, 64b system is a requirement? Thank you Chuck llvm[4]: Compiling TypeRuntime.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors

Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:12:05PM -0400, Chuck Zhao wrote: > I used to be able to build LLVM (from source) under Cygwin for llvm-2.2 > and previous releases, but can't continue the trend since the release of > LLVM 2.3. > I have tried a wide variety of gcc compilers (gcc 3.4.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4 > and 4.3.2) on cygwin, they all fail at the same location: > >

Dear All, We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for

On 7/27/2010 12:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Zhao<czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: >> LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining >> function callsites: >> >> - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites >> according to its cost analysis >> - InlineAlways.cpp

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > I don't see anything wrong with FileCheck either. > > However looks here, that .bc file is in the *source* tree, not the obj tree: > not llvm-dis < /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/test/Bitcode/null-type.ll.bc > /dev/null |& grep "Invalid MODULE_CODE_FUNCTION record" I think that's there from

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:24:19 -0600 greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) wrote: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > > > Often I run a few different builds in parallel, with different > > obj/build directories. Is it possible that the test infrastructure > > writes something to the source directories or some common temp > > directory? That

LLVM (2.7 release version) provides 2 implementations for inlining function callsites: - InlineSimple.cpp (-inline): inline simple callsites according to its cost analysis - InlineAlways.cpp (-always-inline): inline all callsites that are marked with "always_inline" attribute. They are both subclasses of Inline.cpp that assumes the function's definition (body) is

LLVMers, I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and start to do analysis on these instructions. In addition to StoreInst, what are all other IRs that will write into memory? E.g. char * ptr = malloc(...); ///... //with use(s) of ptr later The LLVM IR for the above code would be: %0 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 137) nounwind ///... //

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:57:04 -0600 greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) wrote: > Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > > > I don't see anything wrong with FileCheck either. > > > > However looks here, that .bc file is in the *source* tree, not the > > obj tree: not llvm-dis > > <

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote: > I don't, and the compiler doesn't neither, that is the problem, unless I do > hacking at compile time. > E.g.: > - put all such function's definitions into file1.c > - force to compile file1.c 1st. > - when compiling file2.c: >  . read file1.bc >  . attach to file2's