similar to: [LLVMdev] G++ 3.4.5 under RedHat AS4 fails to compile Clang trunk

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:48 AM, Lian Cheng wrote: > Compilation error output is attached. > > Seems that G++ 3.4.5 fails to pick the right specialization version of getExprLocImpl() function in lib/AST/Expr.cpp. http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Have a bit of a situation and hope someone can help shed some light. Have the attached samba config on a RedHat Linux AS4 x86_64bit system and have joined the box to our Windows 2003 ADS environment using: Net ads join -Uadmin. We can map a user to their home directory without issue. The [dataload] or other shares we receive a window on our windows boxes that request identification on

Hello All, What version of g++ is usable to compile the latest LLVM CVS snapshot on a Linux/x86-64 (AMD64) Debian/ Sid or Etch plateform? What compiler do LLVM dzevelopers use to compile LLVM on Linux/X86-64 systems? IKt seems that most versions of g++ fail to compile LLVM and that some others compile it wrongly (producing buggy code)? Why can't g++-4.1 be used? FWIW, the latest gcc

Hi, The link "Broken versions of GCC and other tools" on http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html points to #brokengcc, where it should point to http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc I guess. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

>> I just forgot to ./configure with CC=gcc-4.2 CXX=g++-4.2, getting the >> (broken-for-LLVM) gcc-4.1 as a compiler. >> The error message that I got was this: >> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jo/llvm-wrk/lib/VMCore' >> make[1]: *** No rule to make target >> `/home/jo/llvm-wrk/Release/bin/tblgen', needed by >>

Thanks, Chris. We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by the community. Regards, Lian On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from

On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:51 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Chris. > > We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager > agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by > the community. This is great. Please make sure Oracle legal sign off on explicitly granting LLVM the use of the patents associated with the work. On

llvm's ./configure already does that for gcc < 3. What are valid versions? Exactly 4.0 and 4.2? 4.0 and >=4.2? dnl Verify that GCC is version 3.0 or higher if test "$GCC" = "yes" then AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([[#if !defined(__GNUC__) || __GNUC__ < 3 #error Unsupported GCC version #endif ]], [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gcc 3.x required, but you have a lower version])]) fi

Hi All, This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis framework on top of LLVM, The approach is flow, context, and field sensitive, details are described in the two papers below: "Boosting the performance of flow-sensitive points-to analysis using value flow" (in ESEC-FSE 2011), and "Precise and

Hi Daniel, I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the exist from a function to a call-site must match the entry from the corresponding call-site. The problem is a simple balanced parentheses problem in CFL-reachability, and it can be computed efficiently. The paper you mentioned is a very nice paper

On Monday 15 February 2010 20:46:52 Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > BTW, how sure are we that all these are gcc issues and not some incorrect > > code somewhere that triggers undefined behavior? > > Medium sure? :) > > I spent a little while hunting this particular bug, and it acted very > much like a compiler bug. I never narrowed it down to a test case, > though. Is there

Hi Evan, We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 option. The overall overhead of compiling the whole test suite using our analysis is 36.5%. The biggest overhead is observed in "SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-5", where we are 5 times slower: 0.07s (with our analysis) compared to

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi Evan, > > > > We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the > > overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 > > option. > > It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any

Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2008, 15:27 -0700 schrieb Shantonu Sen: > llvm's ./configure already does that for gcc < 3. > > What are valid versions? Exactly 4.0 and 4.2? 4.0 and >=4.2? There's a list at http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc so there is a reasonable basis. The list isn't comprehensive, of course, and will likely grow in the future. OTOH

Hi Hal, Thanks for your interest. We tested with the following existing compiler optimizations in LLVM with SPECINT2006 benchmarks: -dse (dead store elimination), -gvn (global value numbering), -licm (loop invariant code motion), -bb-vectorize (basic block vectorization), -memcpyopt (memcpy optimization), -sink (code sinking), -loop-idom (recognize loop idioms), -argpromotion (argument

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:27 AM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. > We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the > exist from a function to a call-site must match > the entry from the corresponding call-site. Yes, sorry, I pulled the wrong quote, it was late.

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 `.L2438' referenced in section `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNK4llvm16DAGTypeLegalizer13getTypeActionENS_3EVTE' of /build/toolchain/src/llvm-2.7/objdir/Release/lib/libLLVMSelectionDAG.a(LegalizeTypes.o): defined in discarded section

I am wanting to upgrade my Fedora Core 6's GCC as it is version 4.1.1 and that does not build LLVM-GCC4. What version of GCC is recomended ? Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070303/c5da364e/attachment.html>

Hi, The gcc version in my system is 3.4.6 During make display error message and stop cc1plus:error: unrecognzied command line option -Wno-variadic-macros Must i update gcc to version 4.2.0 or above to resolve the problem? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I notice you guys formulate your CFL reachability problem as a balanced parentheses problem. What algorithm do you use to solve it? Are you aware of recent work that comes up with linear time and n log n time algorithms to solve this class of problems: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/lyu/_media/paper/pldi2013.pdf In particular, the time bound from the paper: "However, if we need the precise