On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 18 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Eric Christopher wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:51 AM Dimitry Andric
> wrote:
> > The problems from my earlier mail still stand, even with trunk r245199.
> >
> > 1) Various configure scripts
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 19:52, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:51 AM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> The problems from my earlier mail still stand, even with trunk r245199.
>
> 1) Various configure scripts (e.g. lame and others) try to check for
> intrinsics using fragments s
No, it does not occur in the 3.7 branch, thanks for reverting those changes. :)
-Dimitry
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 01:09, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>
> The 3.7 branch does have the include guards; they were re-added in
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=243925&view=rev. That happened
> after rc2,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:51 AM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> The problems from my earlier mail still stand, even with trunk r245199.
>
> 1) Various configure scripts (e.g. lame and others) try to check for
> intrinsics using fragments similar to the following:
>
> #include
>
> then running that thro
The problems from my earlier mail still stand, even with trunk r245199.
1) Various configure scripts (e.g. lame and others) try to check for intrinsics
using fragments similar to the following:
#include
then running that through "clang -E". If preprocessing succeeds, the
intrinsics are assum
Eric Christopher writes:
> There is nothing broken about not having the include guards there, it's just
> not helpful. I'm working on the infrastructure for an error if you call a
> function from within an incompatible routine at the moment (without
> duplicating a lot of code it's actually a bit
The 3.7 branch does have the include guards; they were re-added in
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=243925&view=rev. That happened
after rc2, but it will be in rc3.
Can you double check if you're still running into problems on the 3.7 branch?
- Hans
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Dimi
There is nothing broken about not having the include guards there, it's
just not helpful. I'm working on the infrastructure for an error if you
call a function from within an incompatible routine at the moment (without
duplicating a lot of code it's actually a bit annoying), but there's
nothing act
[Re-sending, used the old cfe-commits address by accident]
Where is the other thread? This problem still exists, for both trunk and the
upcoming 3.7.0 RC3. I'll try to submit a patch tomorrow to partially restore
the include guards, so we won't have a broken release.
-Dimitry
> On 03 Aug 201
