edwintorok at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 10:01:50 PST 2010
On 02/17/2010 07:44 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Monday 15 February 2010 20:46:52 Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>>> BTW, how sure are we that all these are gcc issues and not some incorrect
>>> code somewhere that triggers undefined behavior?
>> Medium sure? :)
>> I spent a little while hunting this particular bug, and it acted very
>> much like a compiler bug. I never narrowed it down to a test case,
> Is there a gcc bug for this testcase? I'd like to understand better exactly
> what the issue is.
> Looking at http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc here's the
> current recommendation:
> We routinely use GCC 3.3.3, 3.4.0, and Apple 4.0.1 successfully with them
> (however, see important notes below).
> Is this really still true? Is there a later version of gcc that's
> recommended? 3.4.x is ancient. Does the page need an update?
> What are people out there using today?
I have successfully used gcc 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 with LLVM.
gcc 3.4 (and older) is no longer good for me, since it doesn't support
the atomic builtins, hence no multithreading support for LLVM.
Other than that it still builds LLVM (or at least it used to a few
gcc 4.0.x/4.1.0 is broken on x86 for other reasons, so I haven't tried
it with LLVM. Haven't tried Apple gcc 4.0/ppc, it might work.
More information about the llvm-dev