Sorry, the previous mail was unreadable: On 28/11/2011, at 18:52, Hal Finkel wrote:> First, grab the trunk versions of llvm and clang. This is detailed on > http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html > > Then you apply the patch. On a Unix-like system, this is something like: > cd llvm > patch -p1 < /path/to/the-patch-file.diff >I tried to apply the patch to llvm 2.9 (not the trunk) but it shows a lot of "... hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file ...". Is it safe to ignore these errors? Is it impossible to apply this patch to LLVM 2.9? Do you have a version of the vectorizer patch compatible with LLVM and Clang 2.9? Right now I cannot switch to the trunk version. Thanks in advance, Pablo
Hi, There are a *lot* of changes (around 15000 commits if I recall Chris' keynote) between 2.9 and 3.0/trunk. It does sound like you're on a lost cause at the moment - you can't ignore those patching errors. Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Pablo Barrio Sent: 29 November 2011 15:29 To: Hal Finkel Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Turning on/off instruction extensions Sorry, the previous mail was unreadable: On 28/11/2011, at 18:52, Hal Finkel wrote:> First, grab the trunk versions of llvm and clang. This is detailed on > http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html > > Then you apply the patch. On a Unix-like system, this is something like: > cd llvm > patch -p1 < /path/to/the-patch-file.diff >I tried to apply the patch to llvm 2.9 (not the trunk) but it shows a lot of "... hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file ...". Is it safe to ignore these errors? Is it impossible to apply this patch to LLVM 2.9? Do you have a version of the vectorizer patch compatible with LLVM and Clang 2.9? Right now I cannot switch to the trunk version. Thanks in advance, Pablo _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Ok you convinced me, I'll switch to 3.0 as soon as it comes out. This vectorizer seems like the kind of thing I'm looking for. On 29/11/2011, at 16:39, James Molloy wrote:> Hi, > > There are a *lot* of changes (around 15000 commits if I recall Chris' > keynote) between 2.9 and 3.0/trunk. It does sound like you're on a lost > cause at the moment - you can't ignore those patching errors. > > Cheers, > > James > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Pablo Barrio > Sent: 29 November 2011 15:29 > To: Hal Finkel > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Turning on/off instruction extensions > > Sorry, the previous mail was unreadable: > > On 28/11/2011, at 18:52, Hal Finkel wrote: > >> First, grab the trunk versions of llvm and clang. This is detailed on >> http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html >> >> Then you apply the patch. On a Unix-like system, this is something like: >> cd llvm >> patch -p1 < /path/to/the-patch-file.diff >> > > I tried to apply the patch to llvm 2.9 (not the trunk) but it shows a lot of > "... hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file ...". Is it safe to ignore these > errors? Is it impossible to apply this patch to LLVM 2.9? Do you have a > version of the vectorizer patch compatible with LLVM and Clang 2.9? > > Right now I cannot switch to the trunk version. > > Thanks in advance, > Pablo > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > >