Opened 2 years ago
Last modified 2 years ago
#65355 closed defect
lldb-10: builds failing for ARM: fix, or set known_fail — at Version 1
Reported by: | mascguy (Christopher Nielsen) | Owned by: | mascguy (Christopher Nielsen) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | 2.7.2 |
Keywords: | arm | Cc: | cjones051073 (Chris Jones), kencu (Ken) |
Port: | lldb-10 |
Description (last modified by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen))
Builds currently failing for Big Sur and Monterey ARM, with the following:
llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3507:55: error: cannot increment value of type 'const std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>' pos != range.second; ++pos) { ^ ~~~ llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3552:55: error: cannot increment value of type 'const std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>' pos != range.second; ++pos) { ^ ~~~
Depending on the evolution of LLVM/LLDB 10 -> 11, we may be able to apply an upstream patch/fix. Though it's a bit odd that this compiles fine for Big Sur and Monterey x86_64.
Is there some type of stdlib difference between the two architectures...?
Change History (1)
comment:1 Changed 2 years ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.