search for: assumetheposit

On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to > llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether > that m...

On 04/29/10 21:27, Talin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis >> <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: >> >> Hi, &gt...

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Talin wrote: >> > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, >&g...

Hello all, Does anyone have any inside why I can't get the below simple C API test to link? This is on a 32-bit Gentoo Linux system and LLVM TOT which was compiled with enable-optimized, gcc is 4.3.2. 15:26|melis at juggle2:~/c/llvmpy> cat t.c #include "llvm-c/Core.h" int main() { LLVMContextRef ctx; ctx = LLVMContextCreate(); return 0; } 15:29|melis at

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means > it > > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition)...

Hi, Slightly off-topic (as it's not directly about using or developing LLVM): http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan "Our long-term proposal is to replace CPython's custom virtual machine with a JIT built on top of LLVM, while leaving the rest of the Python runtime relatively intact." Just curious, has anyone here heard more about this project? Regards,

Hi, Talin wrote: > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means it > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > *of* a pointer. I'm pretty sure it should be "alloca of a pointer", as the first argument of llvm.gcroot has type i8**.

Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> writes: > It seems that the llvm-config generated when building through CMake does > not contain -lpthread on my 32-bit Core2Duo Gentoo Linux system (even > though I configured with LLVM_ENABLE_PTHREADS). I get missing symbols > during linking of e.g. the JIT tutorial code:...

Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> writes: > Hi, just chiming in here... > > Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> [...] >> >> This is a simple guide for using cmake with LLVM: >> >> http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html >> >> The makefiles distributed with LLVM have nothing to do wit...

Hello Paul, The one I downloaded from http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08/Begeman_EfficientJIT.pdf seemed to have been formatted with white text on a grey background. Maybe that's the version you need. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:54:30 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Pass to remove unused functions > > Hi, > > Just chiming in here. Regarding the slides in .pdf of that talk, some > pages seem to c...

Well well, LLVM seems to be everywhere these days :) >From the OpenCL SDK release notes: NOTICE: Portions of the NVIDIA system software contain components licensed from third parties under the following terms: Clang & LLVM: Copyright (c) 2003-2008 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All rights reserved. Portions of LLVM's System library: Copyright (C)

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> wrote: > Well well, LLVM seems to be everywhere these days :) > > >From the OpenCL SDK release notes: > >  NOTICE: Portions of the NVIDIA system software contain components licensed >  from third parties under the following terms: > >    Clang & LLVM: >...

Mike Stump wrote: > On May 22, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >> Sadly, this is not possible in general. >> > > To a hacker, few things are not possible. :-) > > >> The files generated by CMake are not guaranteed to be relocatable >> (they use absolute paths). >> > > A problem merely waiting for someone to fix it.

Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> writes: >>> The files generated by CMake are not guaranteed to be relocatable >>> (they use absolute paths). >> >> A problem merely waiting for someone to fix it. If it is important, >> it will be fixed. >> > Is the current support in...

On May 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> writes: >> Is the current support in CMake for generating makefiles with >> relative >> paths not good enough? > > No. And the cmake people think there is no easy fix. :-( Kinda sad. I can't imagine that this isn't trivial. Doesn't inspire confi...

Hello, Is there currently a way to set options, like -time-passes or -regalloc from C++? I looked at the code in lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp, but the stuff that comes closest to providing such functionality (mostly GetOptionInfo()) is marked static. Thanks, Paul

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Paul Melis<llvm at assumetheposition.nl> wrote: > Hello, > > Is there currently a way to set options, like -time-passes or -regalloc > from C++? I looked at the code in lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp, but the > stuff that comes closest to providing such functionality (mostly > GetOptionInfo()) is marked static. Y...

"Paul Melis" <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> writes: > 15:29|melis at juggle2:~/c/llvmpy> gcc -W -Wall -o blah `llvm-config --cflags > --ldflags --libs all` t.c > /tmp/ccs4MbKp.o: In function `main': > t.c:(.text+0x21): undefined reference to `LLVMContextCreate' > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > &...

...;s exception handling. It does not seem like this will change anytime soon. ------------------------------ Is llvm exception handing general enough to support mono? Is there any drawbacks to use llvm exception handling instead of mono's? On Jul 17, 3:08 am, "Paul Melis" <l... at assumetheposition.nl> wrote: > Looks like LLVM support in Mono has matured to the point they're willing > to advertise it: > > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-16.html > > Paul > > PS Zoltan, sorry if I stole your opportunity to break the news :) > > __________________...

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > On May 6, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: >> Yeah, I found that out, which is why I was hoping some kind of >> attribute existed that the compiler knew about. >> We might go the path of modifying llvm-link to only link in functions >> that are required as that seems to be the most optimal way of doing it. > > If you care about