LLVM 3.2 is no longer supported. I wouldn't be opposed to a patch
supporting 3.2, since haven't formally dropped support (i.e. there's still
some ifdefs in the code) for it yet - it's just that nobody is using it
anymore.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Stefan Karpinski <
stefan.karpin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> LLVM 3.2 is no longer supported – the default Julia version of LLVM is 3.3.
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:58 PM, John Myles White <johnmyleswh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that different versions of LLVM are enormously
> different and that there's no safe way to make Julia work with any version
> of LLVM other than the intended one.
>
>  -- John
>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Vehbi Eşref Bayraktar <
> vehbi.esref.bayrak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi;
>
> I am using llvm 3.2 with libnvvm . However when i try to build julia using
> those 2 flags :
> USE_SYSTEM_LLVM = 1
> USE_LLVM_SHLIB     = 1
>
> I have a bunch of errors. starting as following:
>
> codegen.cpp: In function ‘void jl_init_codegen()’:
> codegen.cpp:4886:26: error: ‘getProcessTriple’ is not a member of
> ‘llvm::sys’
>          Triple TheTriple(sys::getProcessTriple()); // *llvm32 doesn't
> have this one instead it has getDefaultTargetTriple()*
>                           ^
> codegen.cpp:4919:5: error: ‘mbuilder’ was not declared in this scope
>      mbuilder = new MDBuilder(getGlobalContext());  //  *include
> <llvm/MDBuilder.h> would fix this*
>      ^
> codegen.cpp:4919:20: error: expected type-specifier before ‘MDBuilder’
>      mbuilder = new MDBuilder(getGlobalContext());
>
> Even you fix these errors, you keep hitting the following ones:
> In file included from codegen.cpp:976:0:
> intrinsics.cpp: In function ‘llvm::Value* emit_intrinsic(JL_I::intrinsic,
> jl_value_t**, size_t, jl_codectx_t*)’:
> intrinsics.cpp:1158:72: error: ‘ceil’ is not a member of ‘llvm::Intrinsic’
>          return builder.CreateCall(Intrinsic::getDeclaration(jl_Module,
> Intrinsic::ceil,
>
>
>
> So is the master branch currently supporting llvm32? Or is there a patch
> somewhere?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>

Reply via email to