Search Results

Search found 2303 results on 93 pages for 'llvm gcc'.

Page 3/93 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

  - by DavidJFelix

  I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because you're linking to GPL licensed code. And #include "lgpl_program.h" means you're free to license however you want, so that it doesn't explicitly prohibit linking to LGPL source. Now, my question about what isn't clear is: [begin question] GCC is GPL licensed, compiling with GCC, does not constitute "integration" into your program, as the GPL puts it; does using builtin functions (which are specific to GCC) constitute "incorporation" even though you haven't explicitly linked to this GPL licensed code? My intuition tells me that this isn't the intention, but legality isn't always intuitive. I'm not actually worried, but I'm curious if this could be considered the case. [end question] [begin aside] The reason for my equivocation is that GCC builtins like __builtin_clzl() or __builtin_expect() are an API technically and could be implemented in another way. For example, many builtins were replicated by LLVM and the argument could be made that it's not implementation specific to GCC. However, many builtins have no parallel and when compiled will link GPL licensed code in GCC and will not compile on other compilers. If you make the argument here that the API could be replicated by another compiler, couldn't you make that identical claim about any program you link to, so long as you don't distribute that source? I understand that I'm being a legal snake about this, but it strikes me as odd that the GPL isn't more specific. I don't see this as a reasonable ploy for proprietary software creators to bypass the GPL, as they'd have to bundle the GPL software to make it work, removing their plausible deniability. However, isn't it possible that if builtins don't constitute linking, then open source proponents who oppose the GPL could simply write a BSD/MIT/Apache/Apple licensed product that links to a GPL'd program and claim that they intend to write a non-GPL interface that is identical to the GPL one, preserving their BSD license until it's actually compiled? [end aside] Sorry for the aside, I didn't think many people would follow why I care about this if I'm not facing any legal trouble or implications. Don't worry too much about the hypotheticals there, I'm just extrapolating what either answer to my actual question could imply.

  Read the article

• Does Ubuntu ever push new versions of GCC into the package repository between releases?

  - by Lex Fridman

  Current version of GCC in Ubuntu 11.04 is 4.5.2. For certain C++0x features, I need GCC version 4.6, but would like to avoid compiling from source. Is there hope that Ubuntu will update GCC in the package repository before the next release in October (11.10). This question asks a similar thing except for an earlier version of Ubuntu and GCC. A second part of the question, if the answer is "no" to the first, then can I hope to see it appear in Ubuntu's unstable repository?

  Read the article

• how to downgrage gcc to version 4.1.1 if I use 64-bit Ubuntu 11.10 or 12.04?

  - by SSolid

  how to downgrade gcc to version 4.1.1 if i am using 64-bit ubuntu 11.10 or 12.04? please notice that I'm using 64-bit version of ubuntu It may seems simlar to this question Old version of gcc for new Ubuntu but I can't solve it with the method provide in that thread I get some error like gcc-4.1 : Depends: cpp-4.1 (= 4.1.2-27ubuntu1) but it is not going to be installed can someone tell me how to do it? thanks

  Read the article

• llvm-py questions

  - by DSblizzard

  1) Is it possible to use llvm-py on Windows without Visual Studio 2008? Maybe I can compile files on another computer and use on my? 2) Is llvm-py mature enough in your opinion? If not, what are the problems?

  Read the article

• running x86 program _on_ llvm

  - by anon

  Is it possible to use llvm to run x86 programs? I.e. I want to use llvm as an x86 simulator to run x86 programs and then instrument the x86 program. Thanks!

  Read the article

• gcc built by crosstool-ng gives undefined reference

  - by netvope

  I've successfully built a toolchain using crosstool-ng with the default configuration named x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. The documentation says: Using the toolchain is as simple as adding the toolchain's bin directory in your PATH, such as: export PATH="${PATH}:/your/toolchain/path/bin" and then using the target tuple to tell the build systems to use your toolchain: ./configure --target=your-target-tuple or make CC=your-target-tuple-gcc or make CROSS_COMPILE=your-target-tuple- and so on... I followed the instructions and attempted to build GNU tar (tar-1.25.tar.bz2) with the toolchain. The commands ./configure --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and make CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu- do not work (the build will succeed, but it uses the host system's gcc). The command make CC=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc works, but in the very last step when it tries to link, it returns errors like this: compare.o: In function `openat': /dev/shm/x-tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-root/usr/include/bits/fcntl2.h:134: undefined reference to `__openat_2' What could be the problem? Was the toolchain not properly setup? Perhaps x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc is using the header files from the host system but could not find the libraries in the target's sys-root?

  Read the article

• More GCC link time issues: undefined reference to main

  - by vikramtheone

  Hi Guys, I'm writing software for a Cortex-A8 processor and I have to write some ARM assembly code to access specific registers. I'm making use of the gnu compilers and related tool chains, these tools are installed on the processor board(Freescale i.MX515) with Ubuntu. I make a connection to it from my host PC(Windows) using WinSCP and the PuTTY terminal. As usual I started with a simple C project having main.c and functions.s. I compile the main.c using GCC, assemble the functions.s using as and link the generated object files using once again GCC, but I get strange errors during this process. An important finding - Meanwhile, I found out that my assembly code may have some issues because when I individually assemble it using the command as -o functions.o functions.s and try running the generated functions.o using ./functions.o command, the bash shell is failing to recognize this file as an executable(on pressing tab functions.o is not getting selected/PuTTY is not highlighting the file). Can anyone suggest whats happening here? Are there any specific options I have to send, to GCC during the linking process? The errors I see are strange and beyond my understanding, I don't understand to what the GCC is referring. I'm pasting here the contents of main.c, functions.s, the Makefile and the list of errors. Help, please!!! Vikram main.c #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { puts("!!!Hello World!!!"); /* prints !!!Hello World!!! */ return EXIT_SUCCESS; } functions.s * Main program */ .equ STACK_TOP, 0x20000800 .text .global _start .syntax unified _start: .word STACK_TOP, start .type start, function start: movs r0, #10 movs r1, #0 .end Makefile all: hello hello: main.o functions.o gcc -o main.o functions.o main.o: main.c gcc -c -mcpu=cortex-a8 main.c functions.o: functions.s as -mcpu=cortex-a8 -o functions.o functions.s Errors ubuntu@ubuntu-desktop:~/Documents/Project/Others/helloworld$ make gcc -c -mcpu=cortex-a8 main.c as -mcpu=cortex-a8 -o functions.o functions.s gcc -o main.o functions.o functions.o: In function `_start': (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `_start' /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.3.3/../../../crt1.o:init.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.3.3/../../../crt1.o: In function `_start': init.c:(.text+0x30): undefined reference to `main' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [hello] Error 1

  Read the article

• compile software with older version of gcc and linux kernel

  - by ant2009

  Distributor ID: SUSE LINUX Description: openSUSE 11.4 (x86_64) Release: 11.4 Codename: Celadon gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.5.1 Linux linux-14ay 2.6.37.6-0.20-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT 2011-12-19 23:39:38 +0100 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Hello, I am trying to install software on the above system. However, the software that I need requires an earlier version of gcc (version 4.1) my current install version is 4.5.1. It is possible to install an 4.1 on my current system? Where would I get the gcc version from? Also, I get this message about the Linux kernel The current kernel version (2.6.37.6-0.20-desktop) is later than the version currently supported by this software (2.6.5) Is it possible to install this earlier kernel. Where would I get that from? Many thanks for any suggestions,

  Read the article

• gcc sandboxing tool - AppArmor / CHROOT jail on Ubuntu 12.04

  - by StuR

  We have a Node application as the front end to a C++ sandboxing tool, which compiles code using gcc and outputs the result to the browser. e.g. exec("gcc -o /tmp/test /tmp/test.cpp", function (error, stdout, stderr) { if(!stderr) { execFile('/tmp/test', function(error, stdout, stderr) {}); } }); This works fine. However, as you can imagine this is a security nightmare if it were to be made public - so I was thinking of two options to protect my stack: 1) A CHROOT jail - but this in itself wouldn't be enough to prevent directory traversal / file access. 2) AppArmor ? So my question is really, how could I protect my stack from any nasties that could come from: A) Compiling unknown code using gcc B) Executing the compiled code

  Read the article

• How to compile gcc-4.0 on Mountain Lion

  - by Frizlab

  So far I've successfully launched the configure, but when I type make, I get the following error, after some time (there's a lot which compile successfully): ld: unknown/unsupported architecture name for: -arch i686 /usr/bin/libtool: internal link edit command failed make[2]: *** [libgcc_s.dylib] Error 1 make[1]: *** [libgcc.a] Error 2 make: *** [all-gcc] Error 2 Is there a way to tell gcc not to compile itself for the i686 architecture? Here's my uname -a if it can help: Darwin Frizlabs-Computer.local 12.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 12.2.0: Sat Aug 25 00:48:52 PDT 2012; root:xnu-2050.18.24~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 PS: I know gcc-4.0 is ancient, but I do need it.

  Read the article

• LLVM JIT segfaults. What am I doing wrong?

  - by bugspy.net

  It is probably something basic because I am just starting to learn LLVM.. The following creates a factorial function and tries to git and execute it (I know the generated func is correct because I was able to static compile and execute it). But I get segmentation fault upon execution of the function (in EE-runFunction(TheF, Args)) #include <iostream> #include "llvm/Module.h" #include "llvm/Function.h" #include "llvm/PassManager.h" #include "llvm/CallingConv.h" #include "llvm/Analysis/Verifier.h" #include "llvm/Assembly/PrintModulePass.h" #include "llvm/Support/IRBuilder.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h" #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/JIT.h" #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/GenericValue.h" using namespace llvm; Module* makeLLVMModule() { // Module Construction LLVMContext& ctx = getGlobalContext(); Module* mod = new Module("test", ctx); Constant* c = mod->getOrInsertFunction("fact64", /*ret type*/ IntegerType::get(ctx,64), IntegerType::get(ctx,64), /*varargs terminated with null*/ NULL); Function* fact64 = cast<Function>(c); fact64->setCallingConv(CallingConv::C); /* Arg names */ Function::arg_iterator args = fact64->arg_begin(); Value* x = args++; x->setName("x"); /* Body */ BasicBlock* block = BasicBlock::Create(ctx, "entry", fact64); BasicBlock* xLessThan2Block= BasicBlock::Create(ctx, "xlst2_block", fact64); BasicBlock* elseBlock = BasicBlock::Create(ctx, "else_block", fact64); IRBuilder<> builder(block); Value *One = ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(ctx), 1); Value *Two = ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(ctx), 2); Value* xLessThan2 = builder.CreateICmpULT(x, Two, "tmp"); //builder.CreateCondBr(xLessThan2, xLessThan2Block, cond_false_2); builder.CreateCondBr(xLessThan2, xLessThan2Block, elseBlock); /* Recursion */ builder.SetInsertPoint(elseBlock); Value* xMinus1 = builder.CreateSub(x, One, "tmp"); std::vector<Value*> args1; args1.push_back(xMinus1); Value* recur_1 = builder.CreateCall(fact64, args1.begin(), args1.end(), "tmp"); Value* retVal = builder.CreateBinOp(Instruction::Mul, x, recur_1, "tmp"); builder.CreateRet(retVal); /* x<2 */ builder.SetInsertPoint(xLessThan2Block); builder.CreateRet(One); return mod; } int main(int argc, char**argv) { long long x; if(argc > 1) x = atol(argv[1]); else x = 4; Module* Mod = makeLLVMModule(); verifyModule(*Mod, PrintMessageAction); PassManager PM; PM.add(createPrintModulePass(&outs())); PM.run(*Mod); // Now we going to create JIT ExecutionEngine *EE = EngineBuilder(Mod).create(); // Call the function with argument x: std::vector<GenericValue> Args(1); Args[0].IntVal = APInt(64, x); Function* TheF = cast<Function>(Mod->getFunction("fact64")) ; /* The following CRASHES.. */ GenericValue GV = EE->runFunction(TheF, Args); outs() << "Result: " << GV.IntVal << "\n"; delete Mod; return 0; }

  Read the article

• Installing gcc on AIX 5.3

  - by A.Rashad

  we have a development AIX 5.3 on PowerPC CPU having the standard CC compiler. I downloaded the gcc 4.2.4, unpacked it and tried to install it seems there is something missing; untar takes around 15 minutes and ends with an error trying to create a directory starting with @ sign. and in the gcc folder itself, I can't find a configure or a Makefile to install any hint on how to do so?

  Read the article

• Latest stable of gcc

  - by banjer

  Hi, I need to install the latest stable release of gcc. I'm looking at all the gcc releases here. I'm assuming these are all stable releases?

  Read the article

• Recompile a x86 code with LLVM to some faster one x86

  - by osgx

  Hello Is it possible to run LLVM compiler with input of x86 32bit code? There is a huge algorithm which I have no source code and I want to make it run faster on the same hardware. Can I translate it from x86 back to x86 with optimizations. This Code runs a long time, so I want to do static recompilation of it. Also, I can do a runtime profile of it and give to LLVM hints, which branches are more probable. The original Code is written for x86, and uses no SSE/MMX/SSE2. After recompilation It has a chances to use x86_64 and/or SSE3. Also, The code will be regenerated in more optimal way to hardware decoder. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Functional languages targeting the LLVM

  - by Matthew

  Are there any languages that target the LLVM that: Are statically typed Use type inference Are functional (i.e. lambda expressions, closures, list primitives, list comprehensions, etc.) Have first class object-oriented features (inheritance, polymorphism, mixins, etc.) Have a sophisticated type system (generics, covariance and contravariance, etc.) Scala is all of these, but only targets the JVM. F# (and to some extent C#) is most if not all of these, but only targets .NET. What similar language targets the LLVM?

  Read the article

• llvm clang struct creating functions on the fly

  - by anon

  I'm using LLVM-clang on Linux. Suppose in foo.cpp I have: struct Foo { int x, y; }; How can I create a function "magic" such that: typedef (Foo) SomeFunc(Foo a, Foo b); SomeFunc func = magic("struct Foo { int x, y; };"); so that: func(SomeFunc a, SomeFunc b); // returns a.x + b.y; ? Note: So basically, "magic" needs to take a char*, have LLVM parse it to get how C++ lays out the struct, then create a function on the fly that returns a.x + b.y; Thanks!

  Read the article

• Static source code analysis with LLVM

  - by Phong

  I recently discover the LLVM (low level virtual machine) project, and from what I have heard It can be used to performed static analysis on a source code. I would like to know if it is possible to extract the different function call through function pointer (find the caller function and the callee function) in a program. I could find the kind of information in the website so it would be really helpful if you could tell me if such an library already exist in LLVM or can you point me to the good direction on how to build it myself (existing source code, reference, tutorial, example...). EDIT: With my analysis I actually want to extract caller/callee function call. In the case of a function pointer, I would like to return a set of possible callee. both caller and callee must be define in the source code (this does not include third party function in a library).

  Read the article

• Is LLVM suitable for parallel languages?

  - by DSblizzard

  What properties of LLVM makes it good choice for implementation of (parallel, concurrent, distributed)-oriented language, what makes it bad?

  Read the article

• LLVM Clang 5.0 explicit in copy-initialization error

  - by kevzettler

  I'm trying to compile an open source project on OSX that has only been tested on Linux. $: g++ -v Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn) Target: x86_64-apple-da I'm trying to compile with the following command line options g++ -MMD -Wall -std=c++0x -stdlib=libc++ -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-variable -ftemplate-depth=1024 -I /usr/local/Cellar/boost/1.55.0/include/boost/ -g -O3 -c level.cpp -o obj-opt/level.o I am seeing several errors that look like this: ./square.h:39:70: error: chosen constructor is explicit in copy-initialization int strength = 0, double flamability = 0, map<SquareType, int> constructions = {}, bool ticking = false); The project states the following are requirements for the Linux setup. How can I confirm I'm making that? gcc-4.8.2 git libboost 1.5+ with libboost-serialize libsfml-dev 2+ (Ubuntu ppa that contains libsfml 2: ) freeglut-dev libglew-dev

  Read the article

• Loading LLVM passes on Cygwin

  - by user666730

  I am trying to write an LLVM pass on Windows using Cygwin. When I make the project, a dll gets created in the Release/bin directory instead of a .so file in the Release/lib directory. The latter is what is shown in the LLVM document. When I try to load this dll using the -load flag, nothing happens. $opt -load ../../../Release/bin/Pass.dll -help The pass that I am trying to load isn't printed after this. How do I get this right?

  Read the article

• How can I get gcc to write a file larger than 2.0 GB?

  - by fred.bear

  I wanted to recompile 'xxd' (written in C), so I installed CodeBlocks as the IDE. All seemed to go well unil I discovered that I couldn't write past the 2.0 GB barrier... I've read that 'gcc' needs to be recompiled... (That sounds a bit dramatic..) I've read that I can use 'fread64()' instead of 'fread()' ... (didn't work) I've read something about a compiler options (?)... but I get lost at that point? I am surprised that it didn't work out-of-the-box, as I thought the 2.0 GB limit was ancient history as far as defaults go ... wrong again?:( My OS is 32-bit, on 32-bit hardware. The gcc version report in as: gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3 Is there a simple way around this issue? PS.. I was fascinated by the WARNINGS: section of 'info xxd' (..only on Linux ;)

  Read the article

• gcc: Do I need -D_REENTRANT with pthreads?

  - by stefanB

  On Linux (kernel 2.6.5) our build system calls gcc with -D_REENTRANT. Is this still required when using pthreads? How is it related to gcc -pthread option? I understand that I should use -pthread with pthreads, do I still need -D_REENTRANT? On a side note, is there any difference that you know off between the usage of REENTRANT between gcc 3.3.3 and gcc 4.x.x ? When I use -pthread gcc option I can see that _REENTRANT gets defined. Will omitting -D_REENTRANT from command line make any difference, for example could some objects be compiled without multithreaded support and then linked into binary that uses pthreads and will cause problems? I assume it should be ok just to use: g++ -pthread > echo | g++ -E -dM -c - > singlethreaded > echo | g++ -pthread -E -dM -c - > multithreaded > diff singlethreaded multithreaded 39a40 > #define _REENTRANT 1 We're compiling multiple static libraries and applications that link with the static libraries, both libraries and application use pthreads. I believe it was required at some stage in the past but want to know if it is still required. Googling hasn't returned any recent information mentioning -D_REENTRANT with pthreads. Could you point me to links or references discussing the use in recent version of kernel/gcc/pthread? Clarification: At the moment we're using -D_REENTRANT and -lpthread, I assume I can replace them with just g++ -pthread, looking at man gcc it sets the flags for both preprocessor and linker. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• tail call generated by clang 1.1 and 1.0 (llvm 2.7 and 2.6)

  - by ony

  After compilation next snippet of code with clang -O2 (or with online demo): #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int flop(int x); int flip(int x) { if (x == 0) return 1; return (x+1)*flop(x-1); } int flop(int x) { if (x == 0) return 1; return (x+0)*flip(x-1); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("%d\n", flip(atoi(argv[1]))); } I'm getting next snippet of llvm assembly in flip: bb1.i: ; preds = %bb1 %4 = add nsw i32 %x, -2 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %5 = tail call i32 @flip(i32 %4) nounwind ; <i32> [#uses=1] %6 = mul nsw i32 %5, %2 ; <i32> [#uses=1] br label %flop.exit I thought that tail call means dropping current stack (i.e. return will be to the upper frame, so next instruction should be ret %5), but according to this code it will do mul for it. And in native assembly there is simple call without tail optimisation (even with appropriate flag for llc) Can sombody explain why clang generates such code? As well I can't understand why llvm have tail call if it can simply check that next ret will use result of prev call and later do appropriate optimisation or generate native equivalent of tail-call instruction?

  Read the article

• Where does gcc keep its built-in include directory paths

  - by Charles

  GCC has built in include directories for certain standard headers. I just need to know where this list is. My newly compiled gcc will not compile my little test C++ program because it cannot find standard headers. I think it fails because of some config options I used to make my file system more organized. I set the bindir and libdir, which I think might have screwed up the built-in include paths for some reason. Program (dummy.c): #include <iostream> void main(){} Command: g++ dummy.c Error: dummy.c:1:20: fatal error: iostream: No such file or directory

  Read the article

• GCC ABI compatibility

  - by Fredrik Ullner

  As far as I've understood, it is not possible to link libraries that use different versions of GCC's Application Binary Interface (ABI). Are there ABI changes to every version of GCC? Is it possible to link a library built with 4.3.1 if I use, say, GCC 4.3.2? Is there a matrix of some sort that lists all the ways I can combine GCC versions?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >