search for: benikowski

I am sorry, just noticed i repeated myself :( 2017-07-10 15:20 GMT+02:00 Alexander Benikowski <sebal007 at googlemail.com>: > Thanks for starting! > Btw here is my CMD version: > > cmd /Q /V:ON /c "for /F "tokens=4" %l in ('dir llvm*.lib') do (for /F > "tokens=2" %e in ('dumpbin /linkermember:1 %l ^| findstr "_LLVM"')...

...(yes the ThinLTO is excluded in this example but can be added easily i think) 2017-07-06 20:16 GMT+02:00 Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker at gmail.com>: > Made a bit of headway here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35077 > > Cheers, Jakob. > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Alexander Benikowski > <sebal007 at googlemail.com> wrote: > > Maybe someone can use this as a startingpoint to add the windows-specific > > commandblock which is triggered instead of the Darwin one together with a > > proper setup of targets to have the libs build before. > > > >...

Prior to "win32" i used "windows" 2017-09-19 19:09 GMT+02:00 Alexander Benikowski <sebal007 at googlemail.com>: > Just got started and stuck at the same time. Working with the C-Api, i > have come to the point where i want to emit a binary file for my module. I > queried the X86-Target and called LLVMCreateTargetMachine this way: > >> LTarget := LL...

Just got started and stuck at the same time. Working with the C-Api, i have come to the point where i want to emit a binary file for my module. I queried the X86-Target and called LLVMCreateTargetMachine this way: > LTarget := LLVMGetTargetFromName('x86'); > LMachine := LLVMCreateTargetMachine(LTarget, 'i386-win32-msvc', nil, > nil, LLVMCodeGenLevelDefault,

Hello, I downloaded the LLVM 10 release for windows and noticed, that the LLVM-C.dll for x86 has a size of 9kb, which seems strangely small. Both, the dll for x86 and x64, have no export directory. It is not possible to link them statically to Delphi code or call GetProcAddress on them. I do remember that this worked initially when https://reviews.llvm.org/D56774 was done when compiling the dll

...sults themself. They are standard. But the name is missguiding. As long as it's consistent i know that i have to write an extra record operator in Delphi to reflect this. 2016-09-12 11:11 GMT+02:00 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>: > On 12 Sep 2016, at 09:59, Alexander Benikowski via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I stumbled across the following: > > /* Builds a module from the bitcode in the specified memory buffer, > returning a > > reference to the module via the OutModule parameter. Returns 0 on > success....

I'd vote for having each component in a seperated Repository and using a Monorepo with Submodules to work with. Since CLang depends on LLVM but not vice versa (if i am not mistaken. I'm new here), i'd prefer to just work with the LLVM repo if it is desired. 2016-09-08 21:49 GMT+02:00 Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 8 September 2016 at 19:37,

...LLVMTypeRef *ParamTypes, unsigned ParamCount, > LLVMBool IsVarArg); > In this case it is the other way around. 0 means False and anything else means true :/ (so it acts more like a "traditional" bool) 2016-09-12 11:17 GMT+02:00 Alexander Benikowski <sebal007 at googlemail.com>: > Of course, this is normal for C-APIs. But maybe change the name to > LLVMResult to propagate the real use? I am not arguing about the results > themself. They are standard. But the name is missguiding. As long as it's > consistent i know that i...

Made a bit of headway here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35077 Cheers, Jakob. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Alexander Benikowski <sebal007 at googlemail.com> wrote: > Maybe someone can use this as a startingpoint to add the windows-specific > commandblock which is triggered instead of the Darwin one together with a > proper setup of targets to have the libs build before. > > 2017-04-06 14:30 GMT+02:00 Al...

Hi, I stumbled across the following: > /* Builds a module from the bitcode in the specified memory buffer, > returning a > reference to the module via the OutModule parameter. Returns 0 on success. > */ > LLVMBool LLVMParseBitcode2(LLVMMemoryBufferRef MemBuf, > LLVMModuleRef *OutModule); However in most scenarios i know, a Bool is something like 0 = False !0 = True In short:

...LLVM source tree where I would have expected the reverse, that is LLVM in the source tree of Clang and optionally compiled when compiling Clang. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 2:11 AM, Alexander Benikowski <sebal007 at googlemail.com> > wrote: > > I'd vote for having each component in a seperated Repository and using a > Monorepo with Submodules to work with. > Since CLang depends on LLVM but not vice versa (if i am not mistaken. I'm > new here), i'd prefer to just...

> > Note: C does not support this. GCC has an extension (variable length > arrays in structs), but clang doesn’t support it and it’s a terrible idea. It might be complex but it is not terrible. Depends on the language capabilities implementing it. Delphi for example allows exactly that and finalizes its records through RTTI which allows to automatically free up the memory. 2017-07-14

So the Github-Importer screws up the old dark places of the SVN-History and the scripts try to handle this? 2017-01-13 22:57 GMT+01:00 James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I've been working on some scripting for re-converting the svn repository > into git. > > The existing git conversions are entirely sufficient for day-to-day > development

The following is an older commandline i used. Have a more recent one at home. But basically you can write it as batch and trigger it within a target during the build(never got targets into correct order, i am a cmake noob) So for reference, i'll post this one and look for the recent one at home(if that didn't go down with my recent hdd crash): cmd /Q /V:ON /c "for /F

I am unknown to all the stuff happening in and around LLVM, as i am interested in the project but had not time to dig in, yet. Just reading here and there a bit. But i wanted to share my 2 cents on the Lexer topic. I have written multiple lexer/parser for private purpose and recently one for our product to compile Mathematical expressions into an internal format for evaluation. So far i usually

>> I have a question also. You added -m elf_i386 to workaround emulation conflict issue in LLD, do you know >> does output produced by BFD boot fine after that change ? >Doesn't seem to affect BFD at all. Thanks ! ?George. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

this option does not work with llc. i want to generate the link object file from llc. how to do this? On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Anthony Eden <aeden at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > -fuse-ld=lld > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:42 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I want to pass my object files through

While you can go the route of changing master to main or something similar, you're up for a circlejerk you can not win. If you change technically established terms each time someone gets offended, this will never end. As a comparison, when studying in europe, you do your Master-Degree. In Germany, when you finish your apprenticeship as carpenter and do the next level, to actually lead with

...anaging the list at > llvm-dev-owner at lists.llvm.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of llvm-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: No Targets in TargetRegistry > (Alexander Benikowski via llvm-dev) > 2. Re: [Release-testers] [6.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 > tagged (Simon Dardis via llvm-dev) > 3. Re: MachineVerifier and undef (Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev) > 4. Re: Exception handling support for a target > (Krzysztof Parzyszek via llv...

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:03 AM Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:13 AM bd1976 llvm <bd1976llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Saleem/James. >> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:15 AM Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I don't think that supporting all