similar to: [LLVMdev] _FORTIFY_SOURCE warnings

Just to keep others in loop. This issue has been fixed by following additions in Makefile: CPP.Flags += -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE CPP.Flags += -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0 Thanks, Ahmad From: ahmad.hassan at sap.com Sent: 07 January 2013 19:52 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: _FORTIFY_SOURCE warnings Hi All, I have modified the Makefile inside llvm/tools/clang and added the following flag: CPP.Flags +=

--- configure.ac | 23 ++------------------ m4/ax_add_fortify_source.m4 | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) create mode 100644 m4/ax_add_fortify_source.m4 diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index 8576cae5..c5b63370 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -393,9 +393,7 @@ fi dnl If debugging is

Hi Ahmad, If the Makefile contains only this command, then it is not worth spending time on GoldPlugin. If you are building a large project, then it will be simpler to use GoldPlugin. The steps you are using seem right. You can possibly combine the last two steps (3&4) using only 1 clang command. clang -g -O2 -o .libs/mergedexe .libs/mergedbc.bc -pthread -Wl,--export-dynamic

Hi Ahmad, Yes, merging works good. However, my problem is like this - I have a C library which consists of 1000's of functions spread through various files. The functions do not have dependency amoung each other. I want to link only relavant files( files which have functions called from my application). Since ar has a global symbol table, I believe it should be faster to look for a symol in

"Hassan, Ahmad" <ahmad.hassan at sap.com> writes: > I would like to ask if LLVM provides a utility function like > 'isMallocCall' to check if the 'call' instruction is calling some > 'foo' user defined function? > > If there is no such utility function then I am thinking to do this in > the following way: > > bool testFoo(CallInst

Hi, I would like to ask if LLVM provides a utility function like 'isMallocCall' to check if the 'call' instruction is calling some 'foo' user defined function? If there is no such utility function then I am thinking to do this in the following way: bool testFoo(CallInst *CI) { Function *Callee = CI->getCalledFunction(); if (Callee->getName() == "foo")

Hi, I couldn't find an equivalent GCC flag -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE in llvm. May I ask how can I disable the fortify source checking in LLVM please? More specifically, I want to bypass/ignore the errors like __fortify_fail Cheers, Ahmad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi All, I am migrating a build system of an existing project from 'Object files' based executable generation to 'LLVM Bitcode' files based exe generation and applying OPT pass to LLVM Bitcode. I found out the following 4 step procedure. Please let me know if this is the right procedure or is there any other easy way of doing it. I need to modify 'Makefile' accordingly. I

Hi Duncan, > 4.gcc -g -O2 -o .libs/mergedexe .libs/mergedbc.s -pthread > -Wl,--export-dynamic .libs/lib1.a -lssl -lcrypto -ldl -pthread .libs/lib2.so >if you pass -O4 rather than -O2 to clang I think it will in essence do this all >for you already. It might even do the link time optimization for you at -O2 >even, I'm not sure. No, if I use clang for producing

I haven't been tracking dovecot-2.3 until now, but I've just given it a quick run, and there are a few things that may need some attention. Linux x86-64, Gentoo, GCC-7.2.0 Dovecot 2.3 @ commit 32c2612514a404ebc226f32bb88f28d76ceb1db1 Compiled with: ./configure --prefix=/usr --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info

Hi Ankur, Why do you need archive in this case? The other way of doing this is to merge all bitcode files into single file: $ clang -c -emit-llvm abc.c -o abc.bc $ clang -c -emit-llvm bcd.c -o bcd.bc llvm-link bcd.bc abc.bc -o merged.bc Cheers, Ahmad From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of ankur deshwal Sent: 21 February 2013 17:54 To:

Hi Erik, similar to what I did for libsndfile, this is to simplify the handling of adding -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. Regards David

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Carsten Mattner <

Hi Ahmad, On 03/01/13 16:26, Hassan, Ahmad wrote: > Hi Team, > > I am migrating one of the Pass that was written for llvm2.2 or older to llvm3.1. > The code snippet looks like the following: > > Constant *func; > > void add( Module *M) { > > func = M->getOrInsertFunction("func", Type::getVoidTy(M->getContext()), NULL); this function has no

Bugs item #14322, was opened at 2007-09-29 10:48 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=218&aid=14322&group_id=35 Category: Incorrect behavior Group: current Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Submitted By: Nobody (None) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: Multiple warnings, especially @__painting__ Initial Comment: Hi, I''m

Hi Ahmad, On 17/01/13 14:56, Hassan, Ahmad wrote: > Hi All, > > I am migrating a build system of an existing project from ‘Object files’ based > executable generation to ‘LLVM Bitcode’ files based exe generation and applying > OPT pass to LLVM Bitcode. I found out the following 4 step procedure. Please let > me know if this is the right procedure or is there any other easy way

I installed RF on Linux OpenSuSe 11.1 and while it did install and did run a model I had created on Windows correctly, it gave me a lot of "uninitialized" warnings. I don't know if these are significant and so am a little concerned even though my model ran. Any thoughts? Thanks R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26) Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN

Package: src:blktap Version: 2.0.90-3 Severity: normal Tags: sid stretch User: debian-gcc at lists.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-5 Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please file a bug for the other package (or clone), and add a block in this package. Please keep the issue open until the package can be built

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Carsten Mattner < > carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> After figuring out the fault in the configuration step and

Hi Team, I am migrating one of the Pass that was written for llvm2.2 or older to llvm3.1. The code snippet looks like the following: Constant *func; void add( Module *M) { func = M->getOrInsertFunction("func", Type::getVoidTy(M->getContext()), NULL); } virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { add (&M); for(Module::iterator F = M.begin(), E = M.end(); F !=