similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.4 branch gcc 4.9 build error

On 15/05/2014 22:12, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:38:32PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >> On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:25:30 +0200, Tom Stellard wrote: >> >>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:48:23PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the three >>>> fixes

On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:25:30 +0200, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:48:23PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > > Tom, > > > > now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the three > > fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch? > > I've pushed the two approved patches to the 3.4 branch, can you > verify that they work with gcc

Using gcc 4.9 to build the llvm 3.4 branch fails with the following error: llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Release build [...] /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/../../../../include/c++/4.9.0/cstddef:51:11: error: no member named 'max_align_t' in the global namespace using ::max_align_t; ~~^ gcc 4.8.2's caused no such issue, so it must be a change in

On 15/05/2014 22:52, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:41:08PM +0300, Alp Toker wrote: >> On 15/05/2014 22:12, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:38:32PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:25:30 +0200, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:48:23PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:

Tom, now that 3.4.1 is out, any chance of a 3.4.2 with just the three fixes or at least merging them to the 3.4 branch?

On 04/05/2014 02:30, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Alp Toker wrote: >> On 02/05/2014 20:45, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >>> Bump. >>> >>> Is it really unsupported to build llvm from scratch with gcc 4.9 and >>> libstdc++ 4.9? Should I file a bugzilla ticket instead? >> Obviously LLVM/clang should compile out of the box

On 02/05/2014 20:45, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > Bump. > > Is it really unsupported to build llvm from scratch with gcc 4.9 and > libstdc++ 4.9? Should I file a bugzilla ticket instead? Obviously LLVM/clang should compile out of the box using the current stable GCC version, and failure to do so would be a potential release blocker. Please file a PR Tom, do you know about this issue? Alp.

Hello there, I'm building a Linux distribution based on musl and LLVM as default toolchain (including lld/libc++/libc++abi/libunwind rather than GNU). For most of the time this works pretty well. However I'm having troubles with few packages, webkit for instance fails because of max_align_t being redeclared in musl's stddef.h I see that stddef.h is provided by both musl and in the

Hi Devs, Consider below testcase. $cat test.cpp #include <vector> #include<type_traits> typedef int _int4 __attribute__((vector_size(16))); typedef union{ int data[4]; struct {int x, y, z, w;}; _int4 vec; } int4; typedef int4 int3; int main() { static_assert(std::alignment_of<int4>::value <= alignof(max_align_t), "over aligned!"); } $clang++ -m32 error:

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > >> I suspect that pulling in clang header fixes r201729, r202911 and r207606 >> to 3.4.1 will resolve libstdc++ / glibc compatibility issues people have >> been having with 3.4: >> >> r201729:

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:42:28PM +0100, Alp Toker wrote: > > On 05/05/2014 20:51, Richard Smith wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chandler Carruth > > <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>>

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:28 PM Tim Shen <timshen at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > So I stumbled across an issue that I think is a bit fundamental: > > The xray runtime uses the C++ standard library. > > This seems like a problem because whatever C++ standard library is used to > compile the

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf.de> wrote: >> > >> > -fno-strict-overflow >> >> -fno-strict-aliasing. > > Do not forget -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. > > So the kernel obviously is already using its own C dialect, that is > pretty far from standard C. > All these options also have a negative

The hardware we are planning to use is: Micronet SP5050 FXO Gateway http://www.micronet.com.tw/Products/VoIP/SP5050.asp Micronet SP5100 IP Phone http://www.micronet.com.tw/Products/VoIP/SP5100.asp We are hoping to use this hardware along with AsteriskPBX to replace our aging PBX system. What I want to acheive is: * Any incoming call from PSTN (via gateway) rings on the receptionists phone for

1. Same question as David, why &c - 8 is invalid? Is it related to below statements In C99 standard? 6.5.3.3: "Among the invalid values for dereferencing a pointer by the unary * operator are a null pointer, an address inappropriately aligned for the type of object pointed to, and the address of an object after the end of its lifetime." 2. We are trying to preserve 1st load and

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:10 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:32, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I agree that we should clean up the standard library usage even just for > consistency. > > > > +1 -- now that I think about it, it should be fairly doable

So I stumbled across an issue that I think is a bit fundamental: The xray runtime uses the C++ standard library. This seems like a problem because whatever C++ standard library is used to compile the XRay runtime may not be the same as the C++ standard library (if any) that is used to build the target application and link XRay into. Does this make sense? Is this a problem? Talking to Chandler

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 Mar 2017, at 15:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:10 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:32, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

On 2016.02.27 at 15:10 -0800, Paul E. McKenney via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:16:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2016 09:06, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > But we do already have something very similar with signed integer > > > overflow. If the

On 2016.03.17 at 16:35 -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mar 15, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Chuang-Yu Cheng via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Please look at this c code: > > > > typedef struct _PB { > > void* data; /* required.*/ > > int f1_; > > float f2_; > > } PB;