Em Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:07:51AM +0800, Wangnan (F) escreveu: > On 2016/12/6 5:48, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 07:02:48PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > > Em Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:51:01AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu: > > > > yeah. it's kinda high. I'm guessing rpm llvm libs are in debug mode. > > > > Try llvm-config --build-mode --assertion-mode > > > > it should be Release OFF > > > Probably this was with 3.9 and built from git, quite a while ago, now I > > > removed it from /usr/local/ and installed what is in f25, but I fear it > > > will be insufficient, does 3.8 cuts it for what we're testing? Humm, it > > > looks like it will:
> > > [root@jouet ~]# llc --version > > > LLVM (http://llvm.org/): > > > LLVM version 3.8.0 > > > But I'm now running the container based tests to send a pull req, will > > > check later, after that. > > Not really, Wang, we need to update that feature detection test to state > > what > > is the minimum required LLVM/clang version, one that has those functions, > > which, unfortunately, isn't the one in the latest fedora, fedora 25: > I'll set the minimum required LLVM version to 3.9, and report > warning when LLVM is too old. However, since LLVM interface is > keep changing, finally we will have problem if we want to support > 2 or 3 different clang/LLVM. We should keep moving minimum > requirement LLVM version if we don't want to see '#ifdef's > spread in our code. If this area is in that much flux, I see no problem in us both not enabling this by default, which is the case right now, and go on moving the minimum required version for LLVM/clang, hopefully at some point this will get stable and widely available (as in what distros ship), when we then switch to doing the feature detection automatically. I see you already submitted the patch to do this test, thanks, will check and continue processing your series. - Arnaldo
