similar to: [LLVMdev] Testing C++11 standard features

Hi, I am trying to build llvm 3.4.2 on Centos 6.6. I am getting this below build error , while building the libcxx. I followed the build procedure based of http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html. I cannot move to a higher version, Since we need to develop on CentOS 6.6 and LLVM 3.4.2 ,is the last version that supports gcc 3.4.2. Starting from LLVM 3.5.0, there has been a huge jump to gcc 4.7.0.

On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015 Feb 3, at 13:26, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jroelofs.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/3/15 12:08 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:

On 5/11/10 4:43 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi All, > > LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You can read about it here: > http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html > > Or get the code here: > svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk libcxx > > If you have questions or comments, please direct them to one of

Hi All, LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You can read about it here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html Or get the code here: svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk libcxx If you have questions or comments, please direct them to one of the clang mailing lists. Thanks! -Chris

Hi All, I recently committed <filesystem> to trunk. I wanted to bring attention to some quirks it currently has. First, it's been put in a separate library, libc++fs, for now. Users are responsible for linking the library when they use filesystem. Second, it should still not be considered ABI stable. Vendors should be aware of this before shipping it. Hopefully all the standard and

Hi Marshal, ARM has recently moved the buildslave from single test to with/without exception: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-arm-linux http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-arm-linux-noexceptions but both slaves have the same error that wasn't there before: ******************** TEST 'libc++ ::

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > - lambda v1.0 [2] > - local types as template arguments > - r-value 2.0 [3] > - static_assert > - built-in type traits This isn't very encouraging. Anecdotally from what I've seen in LLD

All, The following websites will be moving to a new web server in the next few days: clang.llvm.org <http://clang.llvm.org/> clang-analyzer.llvm.org <http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/> compiler-rt.llvm.org <http://compiler-rt.llvm.org/> dragonegg.llvm.org <http://dragonegg.llvm.org/> klee.llvm.org <http://klee.llvm.org/> libclc.llvm.org <http://libclc.llvm.org/>

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment here? > > Unless I'm misreading the buildbots, we don't actually have anything > trying to build with MSVC. Have we considered how

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq > <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > > - lambda v1.0 [2] > > - local types as template arguments > > - r-value 2.0 [3] > > -

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences > >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment > here? > > > > Unless

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 20:08, Eli Bendersky wrote: > >>>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >>>> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >>>> 3.1 >>> >>> Makes perfect sense to

On 11 July 2016 at 17:06, Asiri Rathnayake <asiri.rathnayake at gmail.com> wrote: > Ignore me please, noted that you said it's the identical configuration with > just the library re-ordering. > > Shall I revert the link ordering until we have time to investigate? I can't see anything wrong in reverting the order, though. Maybe it's best, so we make sure it wasn't

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Matthieu M. <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, > MSVC and clang. > > I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals where there were > several, where not there is a link to a note at the bottom. Furthermore I did > not

Hi All, I've finished the first draft of the 2.8 release notes: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Please feel free to commit improvements and enhancements. There are "a lot" of changes that went into 2.8, but I think I've scraped most of them out of the commits. However, it is also highly likely that I missed something, so if I missed your favorite feature, please speak

Hello all, Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, MSVC and clang. I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals where there were several, where not there is a link to a note at the bottom. Furthermore I did not scourge through 3 bug databases and I implicitly trusted the wiki page. I drew up a list of profiles, listing the base

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Matthieu M. <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, >> MSVC and clang. >> >> I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Reduced testcase: > > > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > > template<typename T> struct B { > > struct C { typedef typename

On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > Reduced testcase: > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > template<typename T> struct B { > struct C { typedef typename A<C*>::type type; }; > typedef typename A<C*>::type type; > }; > B<int> b; > > ... produces ...

On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Reduced testcase: > > > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > >