similar to: [LLVMdev] cmake+ninja build error for compiler-rt sources

I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I don't think that's terribly viable here. We should be able to build ubsan's runtime with standards conforming code unless there is some fairly extreme reason not to... On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:

I use latest cmake+ninja which are built from latest sources. ================================= > cmake --version cmake version 2.8.9.20121011-g2876 ================================= -- mahesha On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build > system. I updated all

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > don't think that's terribly viable here. Just out of curiosity - why isn't that viable? I'd sort of hope to treat optional sanitizer runtimes

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > > don't think that's terribly viable

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. >> > >> >

Hi, I tried to do a build with CMake, Ninja, and MinGW32 and MinG64 respectively: MinGW32 failed on an missing sys/mman.h (POSIX-specific header): D:/test/llvm-trunk/projects/compiler-rt/lib/enable_execute_stack.c:13:22: fatal error: sys/mman.h: No such file or directory #include <sys/mman.h> ^ MinGW64 failed on an #error directive:

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 6:04 AM, Shi, Steven via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> I think your best bet for controlling code bloat is to compile with >>> -fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined. >> >> Also you may not need all of UBSan's checks at the same time -- so pick >> and choose among its checks using the

Hi Eli, Attached zipped file, named, "fopenmp_option_support.tar.gz" contains the first patch, along with relevant *test case*. This patch is to support the option "-fopenmp" option in Clang. Following files are changed in this patch. Please start going through this patch, and let me know comments. Meanwhile, I will prepare next patch.

Let's forget about my malformed IR if it is adding additional confusion here. I mentioned it here to ease the conversation, but if it is causing confusion rather than making the discussion flow easier, then we better ignore it. The whole triggering point for this email initiative is - one of the applications is crashing with the stack trace that I mentioned earlier. The crash is during the

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 10,

I am bit confused - `unit` must be present for definitions, and `optimized ` is also a `definition`, so, `unit` must be present for `optimized ` too. Am I right? Mahesha On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:14 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > definition and optimized are orthogonal (a function could be both, or > neither) - one says this DISubprogram describes a function

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>

Hello Duncan Sands, >From your reply, what I can understand is that there is no any new OPENMP specific instructions introduced into LLVM IR as a part of DragonEgg project since GCC has already done the job of lowering OpenMP directives into GOMP runtime library calls at LOW GIMPLE IR level. Now, it throws up following questions. 1. Am I correct that DragoEgg should logically supports

Hi, I'm trying to do a build and install on Windows 10 with Visual Studio 2015 Community Edition for the X86 and ARM targets, from the current release_40 branch. While compilation completes without error, the INSTALL target fails with the following error: 54> CMake Error at projects/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/cmake_install.cmake:34 (file): 54> file INSTALL cannot find 54>

On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hi, I'm trying to compile the latest clang/llvm SVN versions and I get > this error on multiple systems : Linking, not compiling, but still. I am getting a similar error when building this morning. > Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: > "clang::Sema::checkPseudoObjectRValue(clang::Expr*)", referenced

On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Eli and Others >>> >>> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >>> - I removed clangOMP.a

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli and Others >> >> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >> - I removed clangOMP.a >> and moved the implementation of "class

Hi David If you look at line https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present,

Hello all, This could be a naive question, but still asking it here because of my limited knowledge on clang/llvm infrastructure. *Question:* When I pass `-v save-temps` options to clang++, I was expecting to see the command line for both `opt` and `llc` in the expanded command line output, but, I don't see it. What am I missing? *Clang++ Command Line:* clang++ -v -save-temps hello.cpp

Hi Eli, Attached is the next patch in the line. This patch (class_pragma_omp_handler_support.patch) contains the implementation of the class "class PragmaOmpHandler". I also attached the test case (openmp_syntax_test.c). This test case is actually to test the syntactically legal simple OpenMP constructs. However, we can *really* test it only after submitting the next two patches - one