similar to: [LLVMdev] Dealing with a corrupted /proc/self/exe link

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

I am in the middle of the fun and games of updating my out-of-tree sources to the LLVM head revisions, and after updating to CMake v3.5.2 I am now getting a warning that 'ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS' is being ignored. Has support for embedding the timestamp in the build been removed or is there a new way of configuring it? I generally build internal transitional builds with this enabled so that

Hi, On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am in the middle of the fun and games of updating my out-of-tree sources > to the LLVM head revisions, and after updating to CMake v3.5.2 I am now > getting a warning that ‘ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS’ is being ignored. > > > > Has support for embedding the timestamp

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

Hi All, here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is *active*. The User* inside of Use is even sometimes NULL, but the algorithm is able to recover it. If there is a non-null User* present, then I am asserting that it equals the computed value. I did not receive feedback for the algorithmic part yet, so I

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

Hi PPC folks, as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Just curious, Gabor

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to configure it? Whenever I have had problems building llvm-gcc, I usually have to delete my install and obj dir, make clean llvm, and start over from the top. Its a pain, but it works usually. -Tanya > >

Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even

Looks like people send many names in the contest, so shall I do too. I propose "Lepton", loosely meaning light (featherweight) in Greek. It is used in particle physics to refer to very light particles (electrons, muons). For me it also has the connotations of fastness and restlessness (in the LLVM sense of post-compile optimization). See more at:

heisenbug wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test >>> passes with this patch :) >>> >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and >> following a readme? >> > > > After

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. > But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Well, it's support is not complete ... The integrated assembler supports all general-purpose instructions the compiler itself generates, but has only partial support for all the rest, in particular nearly no

I do not consider PR1546 closed just yet. What I mentioned in the PR was only two of ca. 140 Solaris failures. Most of them complain that llc cannot choose between C and MSIL output formats. The below prototypical patch corrects this type of failure. Is this the right way of handling it? Why does llc only fail on Solaris and not on Darwin? After I understood this problem I am happy to commit

Hello all! I have found following empty files that get installed (v3.4rc2) : docs/llvm/html/Dummy.html include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.h What is the story behind them? Or were they just forgotten? Can we (someone) remove these? Cheers, Gabor

Hi all, in the last days I was busy gathering performance data about the "class Use"-related changes. I have nice measurements on a 8Gig MacPro with kimwitu++. This is important to say, because this machine is in plenty of memory, so swapping is not likely, which means that in more constrained setups (when swapping occurs) the use-diet approach is probably producing even better