similar to: [LLVMdev] does new EH require newer linker?

于 2012/5/27 11:04, Mikael Lyngvig 写道: > Hi, > > I'm building using MINGW64 on a very slow system (Intel Atom 330 X2 > 1.6 GHz), but it seems rather odd that the system has been linking > clang.exe for the past two hours. It appears that a couple of > gigabytes of virtual memory are being used (causing constant swapping) > - the system has only 2 GB of physical memory.

Hi, I'm building using MINGW64 on a very slow system (Intel Atom 330 X2 1.6 GHz), but it seems rather odd that the system has been linking clang.exe for the past two hours. It appears that a couple of gigabytes of virtual memory are being used (causing constant swapping) - the system has only 2 GB of physical memory. Is this a bug in MINGW64 (binutils 2.22) or is it just too little RAM in

Hi, I updated my system and shifted from gcc4.6 --> gcc4.7 .While building xapian code with gcc4.7 there is error returned due to some changes in GCC.Pastbin of error is http://pastebin.com/7ee5WGiu .I searched and found it to some other packages also seems to face such issue like http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667403 . Attached herewith is patch. -- with regards Gaurav A.

After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three symbols become undefined... llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \ \ -L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar -lvmd -lpy -lswigpy-xplor -ltclXplor -lswigtcl8-xplor -lnmrPot -lcommon -lmarvin \

What exactly are the current limitations for using -O4 to create shared libraries with llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 2.5? I tried a build of xplor-nih at -O4 with llvm-gcc, llvm-g++ and llvm-gfortran. The build fails to link shared libraries with errors such as... Building xplor-nih for platform: Darwin_9_x86 [ -d /Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ ] || mkdir

Le 25 janv. 09 à 06:01, Jack Howarth a écrit : > After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to > compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three > symbols become undefined... > > llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \ > \ > -L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/ > bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar

I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this, but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the dragonegg plugin at -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops. Previously the xplor-nih testsuite always executed in ~40 sec but now it is coming it at 34.5 sec which is about the

I am happy to report that current llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 svn builds all of xplor-nih (a complex mix of c, c++ and fortran) with -O3 -fPIC -msse4 -ffast-math. A single fortran file exposes PR3376 which is triggered by -O3 -ffinite-math-only. The resulting build of xplor-nih completely passes its testsuite and compares very well to the same build against gcc trunk for gcc 4.4 in terms of execution time.

I was quite surprised to find that dragonegg svn can now compile all of xplor-nih (which is a complex mix of c, c++ and fortran that is a regression magnet for FSF gcc). The xplor-nih package was compiled at -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops for all three compilers. The xplor testsuite passed without regressions and benchmarked as follows... dragonegg svn with llvm 2.9 and FSF gcc 4.5.3svn Total

Seems very likely to be related to Andy's SCEV-unroll-loops changes. --Owen On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this, > but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime > of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the > dragonegg plugin

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:38:48AM +0100, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: > > Le 25 janv. 09 à 06:01, Jack Howarth a écrit : > > > After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to > > compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three > > symbols become undefined... > > > > llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \ >

Try -mllvm -disable-unroll-scev if you're curious. There can be some luck involved. If you have the bitcode for the important function, I may be able to convert it into a test case to avoid regressing. I usually grab the unoptimized bitcode as follows: -emit-llvm -mllvm -disable-llvm-optzns -o module.bc -Andy On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Seems very likely to be

Chris, Thanks for the hint. Moving over the libLTO.dylib from llvm 2.5 solved all of the linkage errors. I was able to completely build xplor-nih at -O4 now. The core xplor and xplor-tcl testsuite show no regressions. I do get 7 testcases in the xplor-python testsuite failing with bus errors now. The xplor-tcl and xplor-python tests are all run by tcl and python respectively loading their

W dniu 2019-04-04 o 09:18, Tim Northover pisze: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:05, Audiovisart via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Does LLVM 8 work in macOS 10.9.5? > It should do. The released binaries appear to have been compiled so > they can run on that version, and Apple Clang 6.0 (from the newest > Xcode that runs on 10.9) meets the build

Does LLVM 8 work in macOS 10.9.5? -- Mark

On 12 September 2016 at 16:23, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > What's the motivation to not build COFF and Mach-O parts? If you don't need > it, you could just leave it. Are you trying to reduce the executable size? It was just easier to remove coff::link() and mach_o::link() from lld.cpp than to add them to our own build infrastructure

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Yes. Rui has bent over backwards every time a real user has come to us >> and said "we need X". The historical precedent here is that LLD is open to >> many

We're in the process of importing lld into FreeBSD (along with our Clang 3.9 update project). For now I've removed all but the ELF linker[1]. We have no need for COFF and Mach-O, and we have a bespoke build system for all of our contrib code. I didn't bother adding build support for the source files for non-ELF linkers. Is this something that'd be reasonable / desirable to have

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Yes. Rui has bent over backwards every time a real user has come to us and > said "we need X". The historical precedent here is that LLD is open to many > kinds of changes, but not on theoretical grounds. > > Admittedly this leads to a somewhat conservative design