similar to: [LLVMdev] librarydependencies.inc: no such file

Move to llvmdev. Have you installed python-2.x? If anything goes wrong, please show us - output of "./config.status --version" - config.log (with compression) - build log by "make VERBOSE=1" (with compression) ...Takumi 2012/6/23 Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann at 2ndquadrant.com>: > Hi all, > > My system is: SunOS asuka 5.11 oi_151a4

I'm trying to build llvm from svn. I ran ./configure with --enable-debug-runtime, then make -j4, before I got the following error: llvm[1]: Building llvm-config script. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/vk/opt/llvm/tools/llvm-config' make[1]: Entering directory `/home/vk/opt/llvm/tools/llvm-config-2' llvm[1]: Constructing LLVMBuild project information. Traceback (most recent call

Hi Duncan, unlink is a C function, right ? why need a :: ?  Or is there a class ?   --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: From: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM build is failed giving Path.inc:714: error: ‘unlink’ was not declared in this scope To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 11:10 AM Hi, if you

Tried 5 and 50, doesn't seem to make any difference. -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 1:20 PM To: Michael Smith Cc: Cameron Zwarich; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > Sorry,

Yes, I applied the patch on trunk version like below. It says patching file. However, when I make, the build is still failing. janarbek at ubuntu:~/Work/llvm/llvm$ patch -p0 < unistd.txt patching file lib/Support/Unix/Path.inc   =========================================== Phone : 82-42-860-1838 Fax : 82-42-860-6790 Cell Phone: 82-10-7599-1981

We observed exact same problem, and I did put in place a mechanism to recognize and break such false dependencies right before pre-RA scheduler (in DAG->DAG lowering), but the immediate observed effect for our back end was performance reduction, since none of the current schedulers were capable of dealing with newly presented parallelism in BB (resulted in high reg pressure and

Does someone have a solution for this problem ? I am using gcc version 4.4.5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5)  and I have tried several versions of LLVM including llvm 2.9 final. I am getting same error again and again. I have successfully build the llvm on another machine with gcc version of 4.3. Thanks in advance. make[1]: Entering directory

P.S. If anyone can take a little time to write a GraphTraits class for the call graph, using the call sites returned by the TDGraph, that would be great. Then you could directly use the PostOrderIterator, ReversePostOrderIterator, and TarjanSCCIterator on this call graph, without having to do any extra work. You can also do other things like print out the call graph to dot files and view them.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Carter, Jack wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> Ok, you are where I am in the understanding. This is exactly what I do for relocations applied to code. Now I want to apply fixup information to relocations applied to data. >> >> The issue I was having was

Sorry, Dead Store Elimination. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Smith Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:20 PM To: Cameron Zwarich Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access Dead Code Elimination. I’m going to try re-working it following some of the insights Don Quixote provided. From: Cameron

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > Sorry, Dead Store Elimination. Hmm... does tweaking the value of BlockScanLimit in MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp help? -Eli > > > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Michael Smith > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:20 PM

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:58 PM, janarbek <canarbekmatay at yahoo.com> wrote: > > I apply patch, it says patch is applied. Does the directory which I run patch matters ? You should be running the "patch -p0 < unistd.txt" in the root LLVM source directory for the trunk version. If you're still getting "Hunk #1 FAILED at 51." errors, you're not doing

Hi, if you change unlink to ::unlink on that line, does it help? Ciao, Duncan. On 10/26/11 19:27, janarbek wrote: > Does someone have a solution for this problem ? > I am using gcc version 4.4.5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) and I have tried > several versions of LLVM including llvm 2.9 final. I am getting same error again > and again. > > I have successfully build the llvm

Thanks for the info. Curious, do you know if there is an opt that will put all loops, including nested ones, in functions (ie each loop in it's own function)? What I'm trying to do is create a way for each loop to have only one exit. I want all loops to be single exit loops? I can write my own pass but I'd rather not. I think that if I can put each loop into it's own function

Hi Renato, You're right it's VMLA/VMLS that are generated. Still don't understand what drives generation for Cortex-A9. I was using fmac for floating point MAC not for fused MAC. Than I realized that we spoke about fma instead of fmac. So back to the original problem why when using -mcpu=cortex-a9 VMLA/VMLS are not generated and when I use -mtriple=armv7-eabi they are ? Best

+llvm-dev Yes. The question then becomes, does LLVM handle the case where the cast of the value 0 to a non-void* pointer? Think of this case: int *ptr = (int*)0; based on a strict reading of the spec, ptr itself technically is not the null pointer constant. If ptr points to an object in the local address space in OpenCL, or any address space where 0 is a valid address and memory exists, does

In addition to the link below, please check for functions like "llvm.debug.declare", "llvm.debug.value", as you will not get LoopInfo for these.   Pankaj   ________________________________ From: Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> To: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

unsubscribe ----- Original Message ----- From: llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:08:13 PM Subject: LLVMdev Digest, Vol 113, Issue 74 Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev or, via email, send a message

I apply patch, it says patch is applied. Does the directory which I run patch matters ?   =========================================== Phone : 82-42-860-1838 Fax : 82-42-860-6790 Cell Phone: 82-10-7599-1981 =========================================== --- On Mon, 10/24/11, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> Subject: Re:

Hi Jonas, There's not really a very clean way to do this currently. The ARM backend does it as you indicate with the writeback register listed as an output as well as an input and marked as a tied operand constraint. Search for _PRE and _POST in ARMInstrInfo.td for examples. For most instances, instruction selection is done via custom lowering, not an ISel pattern on the pattern; see