similar to: [LLVMdev] possible MachObjectWriter bug (powerpc-darwin8)

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:51:57AM -0500, David Fang wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for the quick reply again. > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >>> have the following test results to share. >>>

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply again. > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >> have the following test results to share. >> Summary below, full log at: >>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and > have the following test results to share. > Summary below, full log at: > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt > > The only edits required were those I

Hi, For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/ I'll update the list of logs each time I svn-update and build. It's nowhere as nice as a real buildbot page, but it's better than nothing. 3.0 still has over 20 test

Hi, I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and have the following test results to share. Summary below, full log at: http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/r146586-powerpc-darwin8-results.txt The only edits required were those I posted to llvm-commits yesterday (re: "some missing clang libs"). And I also edited LitConfig.py to point to

18.01.2012, 02:46, "David Fang" <fang at csl.cornell.edu>: > Hi, >          For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little > page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and > svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. > > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/llvm/ > > I'll update the list of logs each time I svn-update and

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:51:38PM +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > > 18.01.2012, 02:46, "David Fang" <fang at csl.cornell.edu>: > > Hi, > > ?????????For anyone who might be interested, I've thrown together a little > > page to track my builds of llvm and clang, both release 3.0 and > > svn-trunk, on powerpc-darwin8. > > > >

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:17:32PM -0500, David Fang wrote: >>> These results have far fewer failures than svn-trunk, and are also >>> comparable to bootstrapping with gcc-4.6.2, summarized here: >>> http://paste.lisp.org/display/126363 >>> (Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole build/test log for the gcc46 bootstrap.) >>> This consistency between

>> These results have far fewer failures than svn-trunk, and are also >> comparable to bootstrapping with gcc-4.6.2, summarized here: >> http://paste.lisp.org/display/126363 >> (Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole build/test log for the gcc46 bootstrap.) >> This consistency between different bootstraps of the release gives me >> some hope that g++-4.0.1 is

Hi, > ----- Original Message ----- >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Hi all, >>>> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting >>>> to >>>> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my >>>> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only >>>> provided

> ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi all, >> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to >> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my >> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only >> provided >> __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like >> >> #define

----- Original Message ----- > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Hi all, > >> My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting > >> to > >> check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my > >> powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only > >> provided > >> __ppc__. I was

Hi all, My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only provided __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like #define LLVM_PPC (defined(__ppc__) || defined(__powerpc__) ...) #define LLVM_PPC64 (defined(__ppc64__) ||

Hi, I havea minor suggestion for http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html: Under 'Requirements', might be worth mentioning that running the basic llvm/clang regression tests (check-all) requires a version of bash that supports pipefail, i.e. bash 3.0+. On older system where /bin/sh is too old, one simply needs to hack LitConfig.py to point to /somewhere/else/bash that meets this

----- Original Message ----- > Hi all, > My recent commit r187027 fixed a simple oversight of forgetting to > check for __ppc__ (only checking __powerpc__), which broke my > powerpc-apple-darwin8 stage1 tests, since the system gcc only > provided > __ppc__. I was wondering if this justifies using simpler macros like > > #define LLVM_PPC (defined(__ppc__) ||

Hi, Some time in the last few weeks I noticed my cmake build of svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 start to warn about atomics being unavailable and thus building thread-unsafe. I just looked into it and found an easy solution, using the atomic functions in <libkern/OSAtomic.h> in /usr/include. The attached patch does this and also modifies the cmake and autoconf tests to 'pass'

Hi, I have just tagged the first release candidate for the 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to validate a release. If you have any questions or need something clarified, just email the list. For the 3.4.1 release we want to compare test results against 3.4-final. I have added support to the

In llvm/lib/MC/MachObjectWriter.cpp, there's assert(OS.tell() - Start == is64Bit() ? macho::Header64Size : macho::Header32Size); Shouldn't that be assert(OS.tell() - Start == (is64Bit() ? macho::Header64Size : macho::Header32Size)); MSVC emits a warning, and it doesn't seem right to compare a boolean with a difference of two integers. Csaba -- GCS a+

This should fix this warning from Visual Studio 2010: 33>..\..\..\llvm-2.8svn-build\lib\MC\MachObjectWriter.cpp(772): warning C4334: '<<' : result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits (was 64-bit shift intended?) Index: lib/MC/MachObjectWriter.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/MC/MachObjectWriter.cpp (revision 111120) +++

Dear All, Many thanks to those who replied to my query about getting functions into "R". I have another problem that I hope is as easy to solve as the last one. I want to install the package Tree on my system and have no idea how to go about it. Any help would be gratefully received Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Guy J. Forrester