similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Install circumvented ?

Has anything actually gone wrong in the install? AIUI llvm/clang build various test executables/internal tools which the user wouldn't have any benefit from installing, and I gather the simplest way to exclude them from a recursive make install is to guard the directory with NO_INSTALL on the directory. IOW I think this is normal behaviour. Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From:

Hi, I did a recent svn build of llvm/clang, but 'make install' ran into this : llvm[5]: Install circumvented with NO_INSTALL Whats this ? Regards, John Smith PS : please cc me when replying from llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, im only subscribed to cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu

On 3 December 2012 17:21, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > Just a point here: the reason I'd mildly prefer not to have a default that > avoids as much target dependent stuff as possible is that it's generally > going to have a higher probability of passing even if something is "wrong" > in the sense that, eg, if the return type of some thing is ABI

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: > The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with > > make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile > > and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in

You can compare your configure/build arguments + environment with the build bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/4313/steps/configure/logs/stdio I'll check how I built my LLVM on Chromebook tomorrow, but it didn't look too different to yours. --renato On 8 January 2013 19:08, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8,

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of David Blaikie > Sent: 03 December 2012 16:41 > To: Renato Golin > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; cfe-dev > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Change tests to run with

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:01 AM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: > | Certainly slow builders are problematic. The phase-based building > | system David Dean is setting up may help mitigate some of this (it > | should make better use of the resources we have, as well as allowing > | us to benefit (in the form of smaller blame lists, though not > | necessarily lower

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:25 AM, David Tweed <David.Tweed at arm.com> wrote: >> Good point. The build bot is broken for a while and I assumed the person who >> did that commit would spot it better than I would, > > |If the bot isn't configured to send fail-mail to the blame list, > |people probably won't notice. That's how the buildmaster/bots ended up >

Here is a table detailing C++11 features support for Visual C++ 2010, 2012, 2013 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx Specifically, range-based for loops are supported in Visual C++ 2012, 2013 but not in 2010. Yaron 2013/10/28 David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >

My thoughts: On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>wrote: > >> I'm ok with this in principle, but how about with the nuance that some >> tests (eg test/codegen) explicitly opt into march=native? >> > > I'd really like the default

Hi, On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> writes: > > > A personal question: is there any way we could modify some part of the > > build to do some of the "non-fatal but difficult to ignore" > > announcement if the building compiler can't handle the upcoming > > constructs? Eg,

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 14:18, Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> wrote: > > Ahhh, typo in my previous mail: > > > > when I noticed that -Os gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > > I wanted to say: > > > when I noticed that "GCC -Os" gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > Yes. Just to clarify my response. That particular linaro

On 23/11/2012, at 8:28 PM, David Tweed wrote: > Firstly I don't think TeX does pre-estimation of work, it's just the > standard stepwise "refinement stuff". I didn't mean that example to be taken so literally. When TeX formats a paragraph, it has to decide where to put line breaks. Breaking a line on a space has less badness that hyphenating a word. If I recall

On 23/11/2012, at 8:28 PM, David Tweed wrote: | So TeX actually considers several possible break points, | and calculates a badness for each one. but there's more. | The choice of a break point in a line affects the next line. | And the one after that, etc. TeX tries to solve for optimal layout | of the whole paragraph. That's why it produces such awesome | results. Yep; the project

Yes, exactly this: > Sure, none of the cortex-m cores support ARM mode. Try cortex-a{5,7,8,9,15,53} etc and you'll see it works. Sorry for being a bit vague and unclear here: yes, I should have said cortex-a{5,7,8,9,15,53}. I was just having a play with this native compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.10) 5.4.0 20160609 when I noticed that -Os gives me Thumb on

David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> writes: > A personal question: is there any way we could modify some part of the > build to do some of the "non-fatal but difficult to ignore" > announcement if the building compiler can't handle the upcoming > constructs? Eg, just thinking off the top of my head here, could we > abuse the make check/lit mechanism to get a

John Smith <lbalbalba at gmail.com> writes: > Forgive me from intruding here, but ... > > whats wrong with isTargetWin32-MSVC-win32, > isTargetWin32-mingw32-win32, isTargetWin32-borland-win32, > isTargetWin32-cygwin-win32, etc. > > Judging by the responses, there seems to be a need for that. Which > leaves the point of what should be 'the default', which

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Dix Lorenz <lists at dix-lorenz.de> writes: > > > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to > > switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially > > be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. > > That was how VS 2012 worked at

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote: > On 11/ 7/13 12:27 AM, Tim Northover wrote: > >> If the new feature requires out-of-tree LLVM users to upgrade their >>>> toolchains then we may only be giving them a month or less warning, >>>> even if we are giving downstream packagers 6 months.

The obvious difference is that you're using --enable-optimized and implicitly --disable-assertions. If you run the tests with make check-all VERBOSE=1 'LIT_ARGS=-v ' > logfile and grep for FAILED in logfile, does what's listed there give any more details? (Quite possible in a Release-Asserts build it might not.) Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: cfe-dev-bounces