[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
overminddl1 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 7 07:01:44 CST 2008
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
> OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes:
>> I had also tried that before, but let me clean it and do it again to
>> give you just a debug build log (since the current log just contains
>> errors anyway, seeing the whole build might be useful). So what is
>> attached is from another completely clean build, except I added const
>> to that functor (else it just does not build for me). Attached is the
>> build log, I have everything from a debug build if you need it (I
>> built no other configurations beyond debug).
> Your INCLUDE and LIB environment variables contains lots of stuff that
> may be interfering with the build. Please try after removing all
> third-party libraries from those variables.
> You can try removing _SECURE_SCL and _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING from the
> defines too. You define them to 0, which may be not a good idea, as that
> produces different results depending on how you test the variable (with
> #ifdef or with #if).
I finally got some time to where I could delve into things. First,
let me say it had nothing to do with my includes, libraries, or
whatnot (those defines I require for everything I compile, they fix
some things Microsoft horribly broken). The "const" still needs to be
added to the function, that is correct and has to be done. However,
the string error in debug builds was a bug that was fixed in VS2k5SP1;
I, apparently, was running the SP1 beta. So when I add const to that
functor, everything builds nice and fine (well, besides the ton of
warnings), the example apps work, etc... and so forth. Thanks for the
But yes, let me say again, that functor still needs const added to it.
It is correct for the spec, and it is required for at least VC2k5 (I
tried building without it by removing my includes, libs, defines, and
about ten other things, it is needed in every case, spent about 8
hours on all this so I am extremely sure). Attached is the patch;
should I post it to the LLVM list as well?
Oh, and yes, instead of VC2k5 being the minimum requirement, it should
be VC2k5SP1 (although VC2k3 does not have that issue, if someone
managed to get around to fixing the friend errors that VC2k3 is bugged
Actually, I am forwarding this to the list anyway, good record in case
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/attachments/20081207/2b43b7b3/attachment.obj
More information about the LLVMdev