similar to: Demotion of shared symbols resolved from the dynamic linker.

I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25 and I started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures. I tried testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked fine under the old but they generate the same errors now so it isn't any changes in llvm. There are two different errors: FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unsupported VMA range FATAL: Found 47 -

Hi guys, I am following this[1] tutorial to install clang. However, I have made a small change in the configure command, and I am running it with '--enable-optimized' option to avoid the debug build. I am getting the errors (given at the end) related to *undeclared identifiers '__NR_*'*. Can someone please provide some input about how to tackle this issue? On my other machine, I

Hi, Chatsiri! > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chatsiri Ratana <insiderboy at gmail.com> > Date: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Compile-rt throw error undeclared identifier 'O_CLOEXEC' > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > > Hello All, > > I build LLVM source code version 3.2 from SVN repository. After I > build

Seems like something infinite-recursion like to me: $ clang --version clang version 6.0.0 (trunk 317833) Target: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu $ clang -c test.ll warning: overriding the module target triple with powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu [-Woverride-module] ... #255 0x0000000012b07a78 llvm::DwarfUnit::getOrCreateTypeDIE(llvm::MDNode const*) ... So I'd say it reproduces. On Wed, Nov 15,

On 9/13/17 10:31 AM, Peter Bergner via llvm-dev wrote: > On 9/12/17 8:15 PM, Bill Seurer via llvm-dev wrote: >> I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25 and I >> started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures.  I tried >> testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked fine under >> the old but they generate the same

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > Hi, Chatsiri! > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chatsiri Ratana <insiderboy at gmail.com> >> Date: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Compile-rt throw error undeclared identifier >> 'O_CLOEXEC' >> To: llvmdev at

When -fstack-protector is turned on, linker fails to find the symbol "__stack_chk_guard" because at least for powerpc64le, glibc doesn't provide this symbol. Instead, they put the stack guard into TCB. x86 fixed this issue by injecting a special address space (which is later translated to TCB register access) and hard code the offset of stack_guard, but I don't see a easy way to

Bill, For some reason the llvm-symbolizer tests fail on ppc: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux/builds/182/steps/ninja%20check%201/logs/stdio because it can't be started: /home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-test/clang-ppc64le/stage1/./bin/llvm-symbolizer: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.21' not found (required by

--- src/kernel.ml | 2 ++ src/utils.ml | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/kernel.ml b/src/kernel.ml index 356ac4b..9b0e8a2 100644 --- a/src/kernel.ml +++ b/src/kernel.ml @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ let patt_of_cpu host_cpu = | "ppc" | "powerpc" | "powerpc64" -> ["ppc"; "powerpc"; "powerpc64"] |

Please help in the below mentioned issue. Regards Zaid Golwala -----Original Message----- From: R-help [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Zaid Golwala Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:35 PM To: r-help at R-project.org Subject: [R] Issue while building xtable on R on Ubuntu 15.04 Hi, I am trying to build xtable on R on Ubuntu 15.04 but I get following error : + R CMD

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:39:04PM -0700, Rui Ueyama wrote: > > I don't want to make Resolver to have a reference to input graph. The > point > > of this proposal is to separate input graph handling from Resolver and > > instead making Linker Context to do that task. >

Hi Tomas, > On 4/23/19 2:59 PM, Thomas K?nig wrote: >> Hi, >> >> there can be an issue with recent gcc where the system-installed "ar" >> and "ranlib" commands cannot handle LTO binaries.? On compilation, this >> manifests itself with error messages claiming that they need extra >> plugins. > Thanks for the report. What was the

Hi, I'm recently trying to investigate ppc_fp128 related problem. Here is a minimal C++ test case that seems wrongly compiled: long double id(long double a) { return a; } bool f(long double x) { return id(__builtin_fabsl(x)) >= 0; } int main() { if (f(-123.l)) { return 0; } return 1; } The program compiled with command: clang++ -static -target powerpc64le-linux-gnu bad.cc

Hello, I'm quite new to LLVM, but I'm interested in memory sanitizer. The petty thing is, that 32bit addressing on Linux is not supported. Thus I tried to take the latest version of the software and to modify it, using Ubuntu 16.04 as operating system. Given the example example.c: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { int *a = (int

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Tim Shen" <timshen at google.com>, llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, "Hal > Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Kit Barton" <kbarton at ca.ibm.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:59:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PPC] Linker fails on

In preparation for the klibc 2.0.5 release I wrote a basic test script which: 1. Builds for each architecture (with a cross-compiler where needed) 2. Runs several statically-linked programs (using qemu-user where needed): a. Many self-test programs b. "sh -c exit" c. "sh -c '.../bin/true; exit'" The results for the architectures I was able to test are:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:39:04PM -0700, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I don't want to make Resolver to have a reference to input graph. The point > of this proposal is to separate input graph handling from Resolver and > instead making Linker Context to do that task. That was the part of the original proposal I didn't agree with and I still don't do. While the resolver shouldn't

Hi, I have the following C loop to vectorize: struct box { double* source; }; void test(double* restrict result, struct box my_struct, int len) { for (int i=0 ; i<len; i++) { result[i] = my_struct.source[i] * my_struct.source[i]; } } There are two references in the loop, result[i] (restrict) and my_struct.source[i] (readonly). The compiler should easily figure out that

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:29:32PM -0700, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I don't also understand if DT_NEEDED is related to this. DT_NEEDED is not > represented by input graph. And what is *recursive* processing of DT_NEEDED? Searching a symbol in a shared library according to ELF semantics means recursively searching in all depending libraries as well. Joerg

I'll come up with a address-space-based proof of concept. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 17:05 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> >> *To: *"Tim