Build failure on x86-64, related to LLVM (r588)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

g++ -shared -o libpure-0.16.so  expr.o interpreter.o matcher.o printer.o
runtime.o symtable.o util.o lexer.o parser.o `llvm-config --ldflags --libs
core jit native` -lgsl -lgslcblas -lm -lreadline -lgmp 
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/local/lib/LLVMX86AsmPrinter.o: relocation R_X86_64_32
against `llvm::MachineModuleInfo::ID' can not be used when making a shared
object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/local/lib/LLVMX86AsmPrinter.o: could not read symbols: Bad value

I remember reading something about x84-64 and -fPIC, but I can't recall
where I saw it. AFAIK both LLVM and Pure were compiled with -fPIC.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sedill...@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2009 at 3:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What are the exact options used when configuring LLVM? You can find these at the
beginning of config.log in the LLVM source directory. Likewise for Pure.

Original comment by aggraef@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2009 at 8:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I didn't give any options when configuring LLVM. I can't find anything in 
config.log
to indicate that it was compiled with -fPIC. I can't actually verify whether it 
was
or not because the Makefiles are so considerate as to conceal what they are 
doing
from me. I tried adding -fPIC to CFLAGS, and using configure options --with-pic 
and
--enable-shared, with no luck. (Who knows, those could be for the code that LLVM
_generates_ rather than the code of LLVM itself.)

If there are some special things that I need to do to compile LLVM on x86-64 so 
that
it works with Pure (beyond './configure && make && make install') then please 
share. 

Original comment by sedill...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2009 at 4:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

As explained in the INSTALL file, you need to configure LLVM with --enable-pic 
to
make it linkable into a shared library. Here's the configure line that use:

./configure --enable-optimized --disable-assertions --disable-expensive-checks
--enable-targets=host-only --enable-pic

Does that help?

Original comment by aggraef@gmail.com on 10 Jan 2009 at 1:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yep that was it.

Original comment by sedill...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2009 at 1:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ok, I'm marking this as done.

Original comment by aggraef@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2009 at 11:18

• Changed state: Done

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by aggraef@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2009 at 11:59

• Added labels: Type-Other
• Removed labels: Type-Defect