similar to: [LLVMdev] Error: llvm/lib/Transforms/ObjCARC/ObjCARCOpts.cpp

Can anyone tell me the latest trunk rev that builds successfully? I'm getting the following errors: llvm[3]: Compiling ObjCARCOpts.cpp for Release+Debug+Asserts build /usr/local/svn-repos/llvm-svn-trunk/llvm/lib/Transforms/ObjCARC/ObjCARCOpts.cpp: In constructor '{anonymous}::PtrState::PtrState({anonymous}::PtrState&&)':

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com> wrote: > Can anyone provide a fix to this error on the llvm trunk at the latest > revision (): Sorry, that is revision 195934. -Tom

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all for your replies. >>>> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for >>>> PartialAlias is incorrect. >>>>

> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >> Thank you all for your replies. >> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for PartialAlias >> is incorrect. >> >> Daniel: now you got me wondering about MustAlias. This is what the docs >> say: >> "The MustAlias response may only be returned if the two memory objects >> are

Currently these leave in lib/Transforms/ObjCARC even though they are analysis passes. This seems confusing and odd. In particular, Analysis/Passes.h talks about ObjCARCAliasAnalysis. =/ I'd like to just move the analysis headers to live under include/llvm/Analysis and the source under lib/Analysis. This will preclude omitting the ObjC ARC analysis passes from your build of LLVM if you

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>>> Thank you all for your replies. > >>>> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for > >>>> PartialAlias is incorrect. > >>>>

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you all for your replies.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com>wrote: > >> ... >> > I'll see if I can try it with gcc 4.7 soon. >> > I haven't been able to build gcc 4.7.3 yet (prereq ppl build problems--I think that's why I stopped building gcc some time

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >> I'll see if I can try it with gcc 4.7 soon. >>> >> > I

I'm about to try Centos 5 (first time user). Question: I have the 5.0 CD-ROMs, so can I install with them and them update to 5.1 via the internet, or should I use the 5.1 CDs? Thanks. -Tom Tom Browder Niceville, Florida USA

I haven't found an LLVM or Clang users' list--is there such a thing? Thanks. -Tom

I get to where the installation begins copying packages to the new host and it's time to change CD's to the second one. I get the following message: An error occurred unmounting the CD... make sure you're not accessing /mnt/source from the shell on tty2...click Ok to retry. I click and nothing changes. I go to tty2 and see the #ssh prompt and see nothing interfering (and the

Hi, Getting rquantlib working on 16.04 was discussed just two weeks ago here: https://github.com/eddelbuettel/rquantlib/issues/119 I'll repeat my findings here for convenience. 1. git clone|lballabio/QuantLib ||./autogen.sh ./configure --prefix=$HOME/.local --enable-intraday make install| 2. git clone|eddelbuettel/rquantlib|and remove|CXX_STD=CXX11|from|src/Makevars.in||| 3. From

> On 27 Jun 2017, at 13:25, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > Despite the statement in the HowToCrossCompileLLVM guide "If you’re > using Clang as the cross-compiler, there is a problem in the LLVM ARM > back-end that is producing absolute relocations on > position-independent code (R_ARM_THM_MOVW_ABS_NC), so for now, you

On Aug 11, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't found an LLVM or Clang users' list--is there such a thing? Yes. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't found an LLVM or Clang users' list--is there such a thing? > > Yes. > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users Thanks, Marshall. It would be nice to have the link

The fundamental problem here is that opt doesn’t use ExecutionEngine (because it has no need to), so trying to use ExecutionEngine (or any other bit of llvm that opt doesn’t use for that matter) in an opt plugin isn’t going to work. The solution I’d go with would be to build llvm with shared libraries (use –DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON on the cmake command) then link the plugin against ExecutionEngine.

The bottom of the bug has the revision numbers (e.g. D34035). That one corresponds to e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34035 There's also https://reviews.llvm.org/D34634 which contains all of Peter's patches, but it's not going to rebase cleanly once the individual patches start going in. On 6/28/17, 10:56 AM, "Alessandro Pistocchi" <apukfreelance at gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, so it looks like I hit a bit of a wall there :-) I’ll take a look thanks. That bug talks about R_ARM_THM_CALL which I assume are thumb related. Will your implementation fix also R_ARM_CALL errors? > On 28 Jun 2017, at 17:15, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > The LLD ARM port doesn't currently support range extension thunks,

I asked one of my team mates to evaluate centos 5.2 as a more stable distro for our business use than Fedora which we have used for years. His main objection so far has been the lack of a neat feature of recent Fedoras (at least since 7) that allows a user to login as himself if the screen is locked by another user (a switch user feature). Is that feature available or is it planned? Thanks.