similar to: Assertion isUniqued() failure

Thanks - I'll try this tonight. Assuming it works, should these variables be added to the docs at http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html ? On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 at 11:02 David Jones via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Now that autoconf is going away soon, I

Now that autoconf is going away soon, I figured I'd try building using CMake. I checked out llvm, cfe and lldb from the SVN server, and followed the basic build instructions. cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/tools/llvm/svn_head -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86;CppBackend" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON ../llvm Everything worked well, and in

> On 2014-Dec-18, at 01:43, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Hi Duncan, > > I'm in the following situation for which this change caused an assertion failure: > > Three modules, let's say A B C > Two function, F in A, G in B > > Now I CloneFunction F into B (call the new function F') and inline F' into G. > Now,

The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage, so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please flag me down. I'll follow up soon with

Are you perhaps not calling void Function::setSubprogram (DISubprogram * SP) http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1Function.html#a05a19abc8ee11d5909275d980efa1670 ? -- adrian > On Nov 18, 2016, at 8:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > (+Adrian who might have some more context here) > > Generally I'd suggest looking at Clang's code to see how

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Is this change indeed intended as a visible API change to source code generating references to argument list values? If so, can you point me to a description of how I should change our code? Should I bug someone else about this problem? Should this API change be documented in

I am trying to improve my application's compile-time performance. On a given workload, I take 68 seconds to compile some code. If I disable the LLVM code generation (i.e. I will generate IR instructions, but skip the LLVM optimization and instruction selection steps) then my compile time drops to 3 seconds. If I write out the LLVM IR (just to prove that I am generating it) then my compile

Further to my previous email, I now have some answers. The culprit is the IR verifier. 1. opt -time-passes does not report time spent in the IR verifier. If I add -disable-verify, opt's run time drops from 71 seconds to 37 seconds. 2. -disable-verify doesn't disable all verification runs. The IR verifier is run 3 times: once prior to any optimization work, once between running the

Hi, I'm in the process of trying to configure R on a Solaris 2.6 box. I've been successful in the past configuring R on a Solaris 2.8 box but I've encountered the following errors while trying to configure R on my 2.6 box. Any assistance would be appreciated. ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to R.bin *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target

Hi Richard, I tried latest 3.7.1 release, the clang has same build failure and don’t know __builtin_ms_va_list at all. I compared the llvm trunk with 3.7.1 and find the trunk has a VA commit from Davis which is not included in the 3.7.1 release. So, I guess I need to directly build the latest trunk instead of the 3.7.1 release. (why 3.7.1 release doesn’t include this patch?) commit

Hello, Long story short, example config: ### cut UI vesamenu.c32 MENU TITLE Multiboot USB MENU BACKGROUND #00000000 MENU COLOR sel 7;37;40 #e0ffffff #20ffffff all MENU COLOR unsel 37;44 #50ffffff #a0000000 std MENU COLOR tabmsg 31;40 #30ffffff #00000000 std MENU BEGIN MENU TITLE System Rescue CD 2.4.1 INCLUDE sysrcd-2.4.1.conf MENU END MENU BEGIN MENU TITLE

Hi, I've tagged the final version of 3.7.1. There is no difference from 3.7.1-rc2, so testers just need to build the packages no testing is required. -Tom

Hi, There was one problem in -rc1, so we had to do another release candidate. -rc2 has now been tagged and is ready for testing. -Tom

This is the error I get when trying to install R-1.3.1 on my Solaris 2.6 box. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. g77 -g -O2 -c xxxpr.f -o xxxpr.o gcc -o R.bin CConverters.o Rdynload.o RNG.o apply.o arithmetic.o array.o at trib.o bind.o builtin.o character.o coerce.o colors.o complex.o connections.o context.o cov.o cum.o dcf.o datetime.o debug.o devPS.o devPicTeX.o deparse.o d

On 22 February 2015 at 20:58, David Jones <djones at xtreme-eda.com> wrote: > Not sure if this is your problem, but it was mine: > > You must create (or obtain) a DataLayout *and install it into the Module*. > > It is possible to generate machine code for IR and not install the > DataLayout into the Module. Rather, the DataLayout is used locally at the > point where code

We covered this particular patch a bit at the C API BoF at the conference, and I think the general opinion is that this was just an unintentional bug and that fixing it is in 3.7.1 is the best solution forward. I'll send out more on the C API BoF as I get out from under a pile of email. -eric On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:07 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > We knew this

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 05:32:17AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:15 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > I would like to get your opinion on merging r242372 > > >

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64 >>> >>> Looks like I

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64 > > Looks like I see several failures that weren't in 3.7.1. Is there any way > to tell whether these are regressions vs new-to-3.8.0-but-failing? The > MSan ones were in 3.7.1 but the ThreadPoolTest and the libc++ errors were > not

Has it been decided to skip 3.7.1 and just wait until 3.8.0? I keep checking but never see any update on the web site to allow downloading 3.7.1 tar files.