LLVM 3.2 failure

[Geoffrey Mainland]

On 03/14/2013 04:40 PM, Jan Stolarek wrote:
>> If you type llc -version at the command line, it really says it's 3.2?
> You don't seem to believe me :)

Given that Austin and I have the stage 2 compiler failure and you don't,
I think it is reasonable do double check :)

> [killy at xerxes : ~] llc --version
> LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
>   LLVM version 3.2svn
>   Optimized build with assertions.
>   Built Mar 14 2013 (09:02:06).
>   Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>   Host CPU: corei7
>
>   Registered Targets:
>     arm      - ARM
>     cellspu  - STI CBEA Cell SPU [experimental]
>     cpp      - C++ backend
>     hexagon  - Hexagon
>     mblaze   - MBlaze
>     mips     - Mips
>     mips64   - Mips64 [experimental]
>     mips64el - Mips64el [experimental]
>     mipsel   - Mipsel
>     msp430   - MSP430 [experimental]
>     nvptx    - NVIDIA PTX 32-bit
>     nvptx64  - NVIDIA PTX 64-bit
>     ppc32    - PowerPC 32
>     ppc64    - PowerPC 64
>     sparc    - Sparc
>     sparcv9  - Sparc V9
>     thumb    - Thumb
>     x86      - 32-bit X86: Pentium-Pro and above
>     x86-64   - 64-bit X86: EM64T and AMD64
>     xcore    - XCore
> [killy at xerxes : ~] opt --version
> LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
>   LLVM version 3.2svn
>   Optimized build with assertions.
>   Built Mar 14 2013 (09:02:06).
>   Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>   Host CPU: corei7
>
> So at this point we are clearly dealing with a system-specific
problem. The possible differences
> that come to my mind are:
> - I'm using LLVM 3.2 compiled from source, while you might be using a
pre-built version from the
> repository
> - And I'm also using GHC 7.6.2 that I compiled by myself, instead of
pre-built binaries available
> at GHC web site. Are you using the binaries or do you also compiled
your GHC from sources?
>
> Janek

I built LLVM 3.2 from source, but from the release tarball, not
subversion. Does your svn checkout correspond exactly to the source in
the 3.2 release tarball?

I also built both GHC 7.4.2 and 7.6.2 from source (release tarballs),
both using the native back end. Since it's the stage 2 compiler that is
failing, it's difficult to see why this would matter.

Geoff