similar to: failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 7000 matches similar to: "failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11"

2016 Dec 10
0
failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11
I can't reproduce right away. I wonder if the check for the -std=c++11 flag is failing due to the earlier error about failing to find libatomic. When these bots start failing? /Eric On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > several hours ago one of the bots that does a bootstrap started to fail >
2016 Dec 11
2
failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11
On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > So it seems that libatomic went missing between build #1379 and #1380, so I don't think this is related to the -std=c++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. > > Can you confirm the bot has libatomic
2016 Dec 12
1
failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11
FTR, I've disabled libcxx checkout on that particular bot <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer> to make it green. The problem remains, of course. :( On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:23 AM, James Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > So it
2016 Dec 11
2
failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11
started with http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/1380 (Fri Dec 9 18:42:04 2016) The previous one (Fri Dec 9 17:41:56 2016) was fine. There was just one revision between these runs (mine), but reverting it does not help. Maybe an update in Ubuntu 14.04 broke this? On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > I can't
2017 Aug 24
3
Building LLVM's fuzzers
George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> writes: > Should -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER be also specified? CMake is smart enough to infer that from C_COMPILER: % grep CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER CMakeCache.txt CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER:FILEPATH=/Users/bogner/llvm-lkgc/bin/clang++ >> On Aug 24, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: >> >> (kcc, george:
2017 Aug 24
5
Building LLVM's fuzzers
(kcc, george: sorry for the re-send, the first was from a non-list email address) My configuration for building the fuzzers in the LLVM tree doesn't seem to work any more (possibly as of moving libFuzzer to compiler-rt, but there have been a few other changes in the last week or so that may be related). I'm building with a fresh top-of-tree clang and setting -DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=Address
2016 Dec 11
0
failing bootstrap: C++11 or greater is required but the compiler does not support c++11
So it seems that libatomic went missing between build #1379 and #1380, so I don't think this is related to the -std=c++11 failure. Instead it seems likely that the compile test for -std=c++11 is failing due to mis-configuring -latomic. Can you confirm the bot has libatomic installed? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2020 Jan 22
4
Longstanding failing tests - clang-tidy, MachO, Polly
Hi, A few tests seem broken for a long time, some for more than a month. Would it possible for respective owners to take a look please? I'm at checkout 133a7e631cee97965e310f0d110739217427fd3d, compiling on Windows 10. These tests fail with Visual Studio 2019: Failing Tests (7): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/checkers/cert-mem57-cpp-cpp17.cpp Clang Tools ::
2017 Aug 24
3
Building LLVM's fuzzers
George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> writes: > OK so with Kuba’s help I’ve found the error: with optimization, dead > stripping of produced libraries is enabled, > which removes coverage instrumentation. > > However, this has nothing to do with the move to compiler-rt, so I’m > quite skeptical on whether it has worked > beforehand. > > A trivial fix is to do:
2018 Aug 30
2
Building/Running LLVM Tests with Sanitizers
Hi llvm-dev, I'm trying to reproduce an msan failure in one of the bots, but I can't seem to get the right incantation of building LLVM with msan. Here's what I've been doing: 1) Build the toolchain in one build directory, including `compiler-rt`. 2) Build the toolchain again with the just built toolchain in step 1, but this time with `-DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=MemoryWithOrigins`. I
2017 Aug 24
3
Building LLVM's fuzzers
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > Interesting. > This is a relatively new addition (fsanitize-coverage=pc-tables, which is now a part of -fsanitize=fuzzer). > The tests worked (did they? On Mac?) so I thought everything is ok. For tests we never compile the tested target with -O3 (and that wouldn’t be sufficient), and for
2018 Aug 30
2
Building/Running LLVM Tests with Sanitizers
Another option is just to run corresponding script from *https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/ <https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/>* in empty directory. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:00 AM Peter Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello Dean, > > I've not done this
2018 Aug 31
3
Building/Running LLVM Tests with Sanitizers
Aside: would it be useful to execute a build of the libc++/libc++abi with msan normally during release, and change the driver to look for these msan-built C++ libs when "-fsanitize=memory"? That would drastically cut down on the complexity of using msan. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:43 AM Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks Vitaly and
2017 Aug 24
2
Building LLVM's fuzzers
I think the simplest fix is something like this: diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp index c6f0d17f8fe..e81957ab80a 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp @@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ SanitizerCoverageModule::CreateSecStartEnd(Module
2017 Aug 24
4
Building LLVM's fuzzers
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > >> I think the simplest fix is something like this: >> >> diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp >>
2016 Nov 20
2
uninitialized values in Attributes.cpp
> If 3.9 shipped with these issues (assuming these are not false positive), it would be interesting to 1) know why the sanitizers didn’t catch it, and 2) add valgrind to the release qualification process (CC Hans). Yes, I'd be interested to see some corroboration. Note that the issue here is pretty specific: it only happens during optimized compile using Clang-3.9. This is all I did:
2015 Mar 09
5
[LLVMdev] Build failure with compiler-rt on trunk under linux
I've been building clang on linux for a couple of years now, contributing to the testing on Ubuntu, but this one has me stumped: fatal error: 'asm/socket.h' file not found #include <asm/socket.h> [1556/4006] Building CXX object projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/CMakeFiles/RTSanitizerCommon.i386.dir/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc.o FAILED:
2017 Aug 24
3
Building LLVM's fuzzers
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20
2017 Aug 25
2
Building LLVM's fuzzers
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > >> wrote:
2017 Jan 17
2
Git Transition status?
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Stephen Checkoway <s at pahtak.org> wrote: > > >> On Jan 17, 2017, at 14:39, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Stephen Checkoway <s at pahtak.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 10:11, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev