similar to: [LLVMdev] Compiler warnings with gcc-4.7.1

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Compiler warnings with gcc-4.7.1"

2012 Jun 27
0
[LLVMdev] Compiler warnings with gcc-4.7.1
-Wenum-compare is buggy / bogus. We should turn this warning off in our build scripts if possible. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > I just switched gcc from 4.6.2 to 4.7.1 and see the massive amount of > warnings, see few examples below. > They mostly didn't exist with gcc-4.6.2. > > rev.159224 > > Yuri > > >
2019 Sep 03
2
SourceMgr vs EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
Hi, I'm trying to build llvm (git monorepo) on Ubuntu 18.04 with EXPENSIVE_CHECKS enabled and running into various errors compiling SourceMgr.cpp, depending on which host compiler I use. For example with GCC: $ CC=gcc-8 CXX=g++-8 cmake -GNinja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DLLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=ON ~/git/llvm-project/llvm/ && ninja ... [89/2690] Building CXX object
2019 Sep 03
2
SourceMgr vs EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
Hmm. What about the errors I quoted from using clang-7 (starting about a third of the way down my email, sorry if they got kinda lost in all the noise)? Thanks, Jay. On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 20:00, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks to me like a bug in GCC's constexpr+_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS support. Small test case: > > $ g++-8 test.cpp -std=c++2a
2019 Oct 02
2
SourceMgr vs EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
I just ran into this today. Do we need to update our requirements on libstdc++ version? Jay, did you figure out a way around this? On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:29 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It's a bug in libstdc++ - so if you have clang using libstdc++ (which it will by default, I think) then it's the same thing. You could try with
2015 Jan 14
3
[LLVMdev] Crash on invalid during LLVMContext destruction MDNode::dropAllReferences
Hi Duncan, I came across something like the following recently which I guess might be related to your recent work. Any ideas? $ clang++-tot -cc1 crash_on_invalid.cpp -g -emit-obj -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions crash_on_invalid.cpp:13:1: error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations x; ^ 1 error generated. *** Error in `clang++-tot': corrupted double-linked list: 0x000000000754f340
2014 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Goal for 3.5: Library-friendly headers
On Jan 3, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> While having different components of LLVM and consumers of LLVM able to intermix NDEBUG and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the
2011 Dec 03
1
[LLVMdev] New strict-aliasing warning?
When compiling trunk using gcc 4.1.2 on linux/ppc64, I now see a warning that I don't remember seeing previously: llvm[2]: Compiling InlineSpiller.cpp for Release+Asserts build /src/llvm-trunk-dev/include/llvm/ADT/PointerIntPair.h: In member function ‘const PointerTy* llvm::PointerIntPair<PointerTy, IntBits, IntType, PtrTraits>::getAddrOfPointer() const [with PointerTy = void*, unsigned
2013 Jan 23
0
[LLVMdev] Build Error while building AST lib. (DeclTemplate.h)
Hi All, I am facing a build issue while compiling llvm,clang on xlc 12.1 on AIX 7. In this case, template specialization code is not getting called. The code compiles fine if i remove the template specialization code [ 694-702 ] but fails later on. Please advise. 492 /// Declaration of a redeclarable template. 493 class RedeclarableTemplateDecl : public TemplateDecl, 494
2014 Jan 03
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Goal for 3.5: Library-friendly headers
On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > > The key thing then is to make sure that it's safe to enable the > > assertions in the headers if an application is built with !NDEBUG and > > linked against an NDEBUG version of LLVM. > > Sounds great. I'm pretty confident that there will be no problems - in practice
2009 Sep 13
1
[LLVMdev] Is it possible using anonymous namespace on template in header files.
for example /// getPointerUnionTypeNum - If the argument has type PT1* or PT2* return /// false or true respectively. template <typename PT1, typename PT2> static inline int getPointerUnionTypeNum(PT1 *P) { return 0; } template <typename PT1, typename PT2> static inline int getPointerUnionTypeNum(PT2 *P) { return 1; } template <typename PT1, typename PT2> static
2020 Apr 30
2
Discrepancy between Debug and Release+Asserts versions of Clang/LLVM
Hello, I am editing the LowerTypeTests pass in LLVM, and part of my additions include the following 3 lines of code: // newTypeName is a std::string MDString* newMD = MDString::get(M.getContext(), newTypeName); ArrayRef<Metadata*> mdArray {ConstantInt::get(Int64Ty, 0), newMD}; auto* node = MDTuple::get(M.getContext(), mdArray); Thus far, I have been developing on a version of Clang with
2017 May 27
6
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
Changing a header file somewhere and having to spend 10 minutes waiting for a build leads to a lot of wasted developer time. The real culprit here is tablegen. Can we split support and ADT into two - the parts that tablegen depends on and the parts that it doesn't? >From what I can gather, Tablegen currently depends on these headers and all of their transitive dependencies. #include
2020 Apr 30
2
Discrepancy between Debug and Release+Asserts versions of Clang/LLVM
I agree that the ArrayRef is likely the issue. I've debugged a crash caused by a temporary ArrayRef like that a couple times. Either do what David suggested or use a normal array: Metadata *mdArray[] = {ConstantInt::get(Int64Ty, 0), newMD}; ~Craig On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:56 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at
2017 May 27
4
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
It would be better, because a debug tablegen is slower than an optimized tablegen, but it's still slow and it doesn't address the problem that tablegen runs *at all* when it doesn't really need to. I think if tablegen wasn't running all the time we could incremental builds down from 15 minutes (and that's on my really powerful machine) to under 5, which seemed like a big
2012 Jun 27
1
[LLVMdev] Compiler warnings with gcc-4.7.1
Hi Chandler, > -Wenum-compare is buggy / bogus. We should turn this warning off in our build > scripts if possible. is it buggy, or is it bogus? If buggy, then let's report that to gcc. If bogus, then I guess we can either (1) suppress it locally, or (2) report to gcc that it shouldn't be included in -Wall. Ciao, Duncan.
2017 May 27
3
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
I thought we already did write tablegen output to temporary files like X86GenAsmWriter1.inc.tmp first and then diffed them with the real .inc file and conditionally copied. ~Craig On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:02 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:06 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at
2009 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] PointerIntPair causing trouble
Hi Nicolas, Looks like Preston and I have found the cause of the problem. The issue is with PointerLikeTypeTraits<T*>::NumLowBitsAvailable. This is set to 3, which basically assumes that unless the traits are specialized for a particular pointer type, objects of that type are allocated with malloc() and aligned to 8 bytes. While PointerLikeTypeTraits is overloaded for Use*, it is
2017 May 27
8
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
It's that TableGen depends on Support, so if you change one file in support, support gets recompiled into a new static archive, which triggers a rerun of tablegen on all the tablegen inputs, which is extremely slow. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:56 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On 05/26/2017 07:47 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: > > Changing a header
2009 May 01
7
[LLVMdev] PointerIntPair causing trouble
Hi all, I've located a regression that causes my project to crash. It's in revision 67979, where PointerIntPair is changed from storing the integer in the upper bits instead of the lower bits. My project is an experimental JIT-compiler in Windows. So I was wondering if anyone had any clue why the new PointerIntPair implementation might fail. It doesn't seem very safe to me to
2017 May 30
3
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
In my experience the buildsystem works fine in combination with tablegen (at least this aspect of it). The real problem here is that tablegen is just slow. Some of the X86 tables take indeed Last time I looked at it tablegen had still room to optimize the way it resolves class hierarchies and the variables within which it did basically one at a time, so it needed to traverse the hierarchies