Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "a9ab5ae7".
2010 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] updated code size comparison
...t; - much larger collection of harvested functions: more than 360,000
>
> - bug fixes and UI improvements
>
> - added the x86 Open64 compiler
I started looking through the llvm-gcc vs. clang comparisons, and
noticed that in
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/jan_10/harvest/source/A9/A9AB5AE7.c
, size_t is declared incorrectly. Any idea how that might have
happened?
-Eli
2010 Jan 20
3
[LLVMdev] updated code size comparison
> I started looking through the llvm-gcc vs. clang comparisons, and
> noticed that in
> http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/jan_10/harvest/source/A9/A9AB5AE7.c
> , size_t is declared incorrectly. Any idea how that might have
> happened?
Hi Eli,
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into this tonight.
However I can give you the quick generic answer right now (of course you
already know it) which is that real C code does just about anythi...
2010 Jan 20
5
[LLVMdev] updated code size comparison
Hi folks,
I've posted an updated code size comparison between LLVM, GCC, and
others here:
http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/
New in this version:
- much larger collection of harvested functions: more than 360,000
- bug fixes and UI improvements
- added the x86 Open64 compiler
John
2010 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] updated code size comparison
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> I started looking through the llvm-gcc vs. clang comparisons, and
>> noticed that in
>> http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/jan_10/harvest/source/A9/A9AB5AE7.c
>> , size_t is declared incorrectly. Any idea how that might have
>> happened?
>
> Hi Eli,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into this tonight.
>
> However I can give you the quick generic answer right now (of course you
> already know it) which is...