[klee-dev] KLEE failed to build cleanly with LLVM 3.3

[Cristian Cadar]

Thanks, Sean.  The preferred way to submit patches is via pull requests
on GitHub (http://klee.github.io/klee/developers-guide.html#github), but
I'm happy to incorporate this small patch manually if you prefer.

Cristian

On 23/09/2014 04:08, Sean Bartell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Daniel Liew on 2014-09-17:
>> On 17 September 2014 20:10, Mark R. Tuttle <tuttle at acm.org> wrote:
>>> I just did a "git pull" to grab the latest commit (2497fdc) and ran into
>>> trouble building against LLVM 3.3 and running the regression tests.
>>>
>>> Build failed in file src/tools/klee/main.cpp in function
>>> KleeHandler::openOutputFile
>>>
>>> #if LLVM_VERSION_CODE >= LLVM_VERSION(3,5)
>>>   f = new llvm::raw_fd_ostream(path.c_str(), Error, llvm::sys::fs::F_None);
>>> #elif LLVM_VERSION_CODE >= LLVM_VERSION(3,0)
>>>   f = new llvm::raw_fd_ostream(path.c_str(), Error,
>>> llvm::sys::fs::F_Binary);
>>> #else
>>>   f = new llvm::raw_fd_ostream(path.c_str(), Error,
>>> llvm::raw_fd_ostream::F_Binary);
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> because llvm::sys::fs::F_Binary was not defined.  LLVM 3.3 source code seems
>>> to define llvm::raw_fd_ostream::F_Binary and not llvm::sys::fs:F_Binary.  I
>>> changed the reference to LLVM version 3.0 to 3.4 and the build succeeded.
>>
>> We are currently targeting LLVM2.9 and LLVM3.4 [1] and are not testing
>> LLVM3.3 build support. Do you need to use LLVM3.3 for any particular
>> reason?
>>
>> We'd happily accept a patch to fix your compilation error provided it
>> doesn't break the configurations we're testing right now.
> 
> I had the same problem a while ago, and it turns out the correct guard
> is >= LLVM_VERSION(3,4). I've attached a patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean Bartell
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> klee-dev mailing list
> klee-dev at imperial.ac.uk
> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/klee-dev
>