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.