similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM+Clang 3.2rc2 MinGW binaries' libstdc++ requirement

> I attempted to run the 3.2rc2 experimental LLVM+Clang package for > Mingw32/x86 [1], and ran into difficulty finding a suitable version of > MinGW to run it with. Part of the problem is that Windows G++ changed > its C++ ABI in 4.7 [2]. LLVM+Clang 3.2rc2 Mingw32/x86 binaries were built on Windows 7 machine with fresh Minwg32 installation. Minwg32 installation was performed using

On 08/03/2015 10:02 PM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote: > Hi, > > [This is a follow-up to the "New version of Rtools for Windows" thread > in January, but I just subscribed and don't know how to reply to an > old thread -- my apologies.] I am planning to put a new Rtools online today that uses a different build of gcc 4.9.2. I will be concentrating on getting it to work

I can't boostrap LLVM CFE at FreeBSD with current LLVM and LLVM CFE CVS sources. GCC bootstrap terminated with error: /usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/objcfe/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/objcfe/gcc/ -B/home/wanderer/pkg/build /llvm/night/cfe/i386-unknown-freebsd5.3/bin/ -B/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/night/cfe/i386-unknown-freebsd5.3/lib/ -isystem

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> I think we need to relax the test cases. MSVC usually prints the calling >> convention, and it's often useful information. > > I was going to argue that MSVC doesn't print them, but then I tried, >

I rewrote scatter.smooth to handle missing values, but I have a question about a move I had to make. Here's the code: Mscatter.smooth<-function (x, y, span = 2/3, degree = 1, family = c("symmetric", "gaussian"), xlab = deparse(substitute(x)), ylab = deparse(substitute(y)), ylim = range(y, prediction$y), evaluation = 50, ...) { if (inherits(x,

Hi, [This is a follow-up to the "New version of Rtools for Windows" thread in January, but I just subscribed and don't know how to reply to an old thread -- my apologies.] I was able to use the nuwen distro to build a gcc 4.9.2 toolchain and use it to build the latest R-patched with it. Below are some notes about what I did; I hope they will be useful for keeping Rtools

I am experimenting with rSymPy, and it seems to work nice. However, I dislike the need to wrap all sympy expressions within quotes, it leads to ugly calls like library(rSymPy) Var("x,y,z") sympy("(x+y)**2") and so on. Inspired by the function cq from mvbutiles package: library(mvbutils) > cq function (...) { as.character(sapply(as.list(match.call(expand.dots =

On Apr 19, 2007, at 2:37 PM, David Greene wrote: > Got a strange problem. With our modified llvm here,llvm-gcc won't > bootstrap. It fails compiling unwind-dw2.c during translation from > the gcc IR to llvm. It fails with -O0 -emit-llvm so according to > the docs, this is strictly a frontend bug. A run of delta produced > an 18 line testcase with nothing remarkable in it.

Hello Aaron, Anton, LLVM-dev, While working on http://llvm.org/PR13676#c6 I found out that whenever I compile code with class methods returning structures it get generated incompatible with MSVC. Looking at lib/Target/X86/X86CallingConv.td, I found out that CC_X86_32_ThisCall maps SRet to EAX but in fact it should push the address of the return temp on stack. The following patch fixes the issue

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There doesn't appear to be a calling convention matching "thiscall"... on gcc targets, the standard calling convention is fine (just pass "this" as the first parameter), but with MSVC this won't work because it passes "this" in %ECX. Is there a workaround for this? Or how hard would it be to add a separate

Hello all, I wanna build a static linked executable using llvm. But I failed. My question is Can we use -static using llvm? Thanks for any response. Below is details ======== First I use $ clang++ test.cc `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --libs` I works as usual. But if I use $ clang++ test.cc `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --libs` -static It yells lots of undefined reference, like

On 5 Feb 2018, at 21:19, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I encountered a strange behaviour which I can't explain. > > I'm developing an application under Windows 7 64bit. This application is using the LLVM library to load and resolve BC files generated with clang. Then the program picks some functions from the module and

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: >>>> b) Should I be altering CC_X86_32_ThisCall >>>> OR should I introduce CC_X86_Win32_ThisCall instead? >>>> [Answer not clear to me - is there any platform besides Windows >>>> that uses thiscall?] >>> no >> Can you please clarify which

On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > So I couldn't get exceptions to work on PPC darwin. After much > digging and confusion, there seem > to be two separate issues. Ok. > The gcc testsuite is running the version of the unwinding code that > was built with the local (llvm-)gcc, > which doesn't work because nobody has implemented >

Hi, After a discussion with David, Id like to propose a rework of the Windows target triples. The current set of Windows triples are somewhat less uniform than their Linux counterparts. With multiple ABIs and environments on Windows, they are also slightly awkward. Obviously, certain ones might be nice to keep around for compatibility (e.g. the mingw triple). Just to ensure that everyone has

Hello Timur, > I'd like to ask for advice: > a) Is it OK to change the SRet/ThisCall behaviour on non-Windows platforms? > [I suppose no] no > > b) Should I be altering CC_X86_32_ThisCall > OR should I introduce CC_X86_Win32_ThisCall instead? > [Answer not clear to me - is there any platform besides Windows > that uses thiscall?] no It seems for me

> Attached is a patch that fixes all the test failures I saw due to > printing out the thiscall attribute on types. > > Do we want to land this now, or wait until the thiscall switch is > actually flipped for MinGW? Maybe combining the patches would be the best? It is funny, I had never tried check-all on mingw. I just did and found some codegen errors, mostly when we look for

While attempting to compile llvm-gcc on Intel x86_64 2-way 4-core machine, i got the following errors: configure line i used is: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/configure --enable-llvm=`pwd`/../../llvm-2.5 --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-languages=c,c++ --host=x86_64-redhat-linux --build=x86_64-redhat-linux --disable-multilib --disable-shared Errors: lvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/gcc/.

On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 28, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >>> This is a (very) rough patch to fix building LLVM with exceptions on >>> PPC Darwin. Basically, it puts the burden of adding the "--enable- >>> eh" >>> on the specific target, which is where I think it should go. >> >> I

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I think we need to relax the test cases. MSVC usually prints the calling > convention, and it's often useful information. I was going to argue that MSVC doesn't print them, but then I tried, and you're right - it does :) I'll start relaxing the tests then. > Maybe we can make the