similar to: [LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang?

So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Robby On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote: > This code is undefined, meaning that all bets are off, don't do it. > I.e. It reads the value of I between two sequence points and uses it > for something other than determining the value written. From: Csaba > Raduly >

Hello, Is this a bug in clang, or a bug in my thinking? /Joe Armstrong /* When I compile the following program I get different answers in clang and gcc. $ gcc bug2.c $ ./a.out j = 40 $ clang bug2.c $ ./a.out j = 41 I think the correct answer is 41. If my understanding of C is correct (which, or course, it might not be) the incremented value of i++ is first made available

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Joe Armstrong wrote: > > It seems very strange to me that the ansi standard says "XXX is > undefined" and that both clang and gcc > can detect that something is undefined and that by default they > compile the offending code without > any feelings of guilt. "The good thing — the only good thing! — about undefined behavior in

Hi, Two days ago, the test suite started failing. Initially there were hundreds of failing tests; now only seven remain. They appear to be related to SystemZ. Here's the last failed test: ******************** FAIL: LLVM :: MC/Disassembler/SystemZ/unmapped.txt (11484 of 14435) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: MC/Disassembler/SystemZ/unmapped.txt' FAILED ******************** Script:

Hi, For a couple of days now, one of the tests fails: FAIL: LLVM :: MC/R600/sopp.s (16225 of 19902) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: MC/R600/sopp.s' FAILED ******************** Script: -- /home/csabaraduly/workspace/LLVM/build/Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -arch=r600 -mcpu=SI -show-encoding /home/csabaraduly/workspace/LLVM/llvm/test/MC/R600/sopp.s |

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 May 2013 09:01, Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "s390x--linux-gnu" seems wrong: either there's a dash too many or a >> word too few. > > > Nope, this triple is correct. The canonicalization of the triple (actually a > quadruple)

> So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Since the program invokes undefined behavior, anything goes. The compiler is perfectly within its rights to send a rude email to your department chair if you compile that code. John

Hi all, LLVM+clang builds fine under Cygwin 1.7, but "make check-all" fails to run because lit doesn't find the freshly built clang. The reason is as follows: in llvm/utils/lit/lit/Util.py, in the "which" method, there's 66: # Get suffixes to search. 67: pathext = os.environ.get('PATHEXT', '').split(os.pathsep) The problem is, PATHEXT is imported

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:24 AM, James Molloy wrote: > Hi Paul, > > That should be easy enough, because the LLVM build has no warnings in it! > > Some of us build with -Werror, and even with those of us that don't warnings are not tolerated. You're already seeing all the warnings that are coming out of the build :) So, all the "variable might be used

Hi Anand On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Anand Arumugam wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:40 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: >> >> Anand, >> >> >> I have not tried building llvm-gcc, though, ... >> >> Please show me "/path/to/config.status --version". > > [Anand] Here is the config.status output taken from '/cygdrive/c/llvm-2.8':

Good evening, Csaba! I think rather, Cygwin does not need to know what PATHEXT would be. A patch(0001) is attached. Another patch is for unittests. Lit does not find *Tests.exe in unittests on ToT. 2010/12/24 Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com>: > P.S. > With the above change, "make check-all" starts to run. Estimated run > time: 40 hours on my 1.8GHz single-core

On Thursday, December 08, 2011 02:46:39 AM Csaba Raduly wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > > I compiled a program and standard library using clang/LLVM and found the > > results interesting: > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 141312 4076 16668 162056 27908 bzip2.arm > > 131764 4076

clang version 2.9 (trunk 123166) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix Fails to compile ctags 5.8 (also 5.6), specifically eiffel.c: $ clang -v -c e.c -O2 -Wno-unused-value clang version 2.9 (trunk 123166) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix "/home/csaba/bin/clang" -cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -emit-obj -disable-free -main-file-name e.c

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:40 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com>wrote: > Anand, > > > I have not tried building llvm-gcc, though, ... > > Please show me "/path/to/config.status --version". > [Anand] Here is the config.status output taken from '/cygdrive/c/llvm-2.8': ./config.status --version llvm config.status 2.8 configured by

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > Yes, ARM normally runs as a little-endian and it is a 32-bit CPU. It CAN be > configured to be a big-endian system, but that requires hardware support as > far as I know. > > I do have an old, slow Mac Mini G4 PowerPC (big-endian) that I could hook up > as a builder too. I was thinking of it the moment you mentioned big

Yes, ARM normally runs as a little-endian and it is a 32-bit CPU. It CAN be configured to be a big-endian system, but that requires hardware support as far as I know. I do have an old, slow Mac Mini G4 PowerPC (big-endian) that I could hook up as a builder too. I was thinking of it the moment you mentioned big endian. I actually bought it for testing C++ code on because big-endian machines are

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:59 PM, monica j wrote: > The latest in my problems building clang-only: > > llvm[4]: Linking Debug+Asserts executable clang > /llvm/build/Debug+Asserts/lib/libclangLex.a: could not read symbols: File > format not recognized > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status What is the output of file /llvm/build/Debug+Asserts/lib/libclangLex.a ? Csaba -- GCS

The latest in my problems building clang-only: llvm[4]: Linking Debug+Asserts executable clang /llvm/build/Debug+Asserts/lib/libclangLex.a: could not read symbols: File format not recognized collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Any suggestions appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 11.01.2011, at 12:02, Csaba Raduly wrote: > clang version 2.9 (trunk 123166) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > > Fails to compile ctags 5.8 (also 5.6), specifically eiffel.c: > > $ clang -v -c e.c -O2 -Wno-unused-value > clang version 2.9 (trunk 123166) […] > bool<unnamed>::LoopRotate::rotateLoop(llvm::Loop*): Assertion `DidIt >

On 16 May 2013 09:01, Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com> wrote: > "s390x--linux-gnu" seems wrong: either there's a dash too many or a > word too few. > Nope, this triple is correct. The canonicalization of the triple (actually a quadruple) always print all fields, empty or not. I'm not sure what's going on, though. How are you building this? Is your