[llvm] r240364 - [FaultMaps] Move FaultMapParser to Object/

[Rafael Espíndola]

On 22 June 2015 at 22:53, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Rafael Espíndola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't reproduce the error. I have reverted this patch locally and I
>> can build with -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON.
>>
>> What cmake command line did you use to get the error?
>
> Strange;  on OS X, I do:
>
> cmake .. -GNinja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON
> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86
>
> And I get:
>
> [666/666] Linking CXX executable bin/llvm-objdump
> FAILED: : && /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/OSX10.10.xctoolchain/usr/bin/c++
>   -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter
> -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-field-initializers -pedantic
> -Wno-long-long -Wcovered-switch-default -std=c++11 -fcolor-diagnostics
> -g -Wl,-search_paths_first -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names
> tools/llvm-objdump/CMakeFiles/llvm-objdump.dir/llvm-objdump.cpp.o
> tools/llvm-objdump/CMakeFiles/llvm-objdump.dir/COFFDump.cpp.o
> tools/llvm-objdump/CMakeFiles/llvm-objdump.dir/ELFDump.cpp.o
> tools/llvm-objdump/CMakeFiles/llvm-objdump.dir/MachODump.cpp.o  -o
> bin/llvm-objdump  lib/libLLVMX86CodeGen.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMX86AsmPrinter.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMX86AsmParser.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMX86Desc.3.7.0svn.dylib lib/libLLVMX86Info.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMX86Disassembler.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMDebugInfoDWARF.3.7.0svn.dylib lib/libLLVMMC.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMMCDisassembler.3.7.0svn.dylib
> lib/libLLVMObject.3.7.0svn.dylib lib/libLLVMSupport.3.7.0svn.dylib
> -Wl,-rpath, at executable_path/../lib && :
> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
>   "llvm::operator<<(llvm::raw_ostream&, llvm::FaultMapParser const&)",
> referenced from:
>       printFaultMaps(llvm::object::ObjectFile const*) in llvm-objdump.cpp.o
> ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
>
> Am I missing anything?

r240362 I think :-)

It should probably be reverted now.

Cheers,
Rafael