Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "built_in_appli".
Did you mean:
built_in_apply
2008 Feb 15
0
[LLVMdev] llvm.atomic.barrier implementation
On 2/15/08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote:
> I'll take a hack at the front end support for
> __sync_synchronize after this goes in.
This is the gcc side of the patch.
Index: gcc/llvm-convert.cpp
===================================================================
--- gcc/llvm-convert.cpp (revision 46956)
+++ gcc/llvm-convert.cpp (working copy)
@@
2008 Feb 15
6
[LLVMdev] llvm.atomic.barrier implementation
Attached is the target independent llvm.atomic.barrier support, as
well as alpha and x86 (sse2) support. This matches Chandler's
definitions, and the LangRef patch will just restore that. Non-sse2
barrier will be needed, I think it is "lock; mov %esp, %esp", but I'm
not sure.
Any objections? I'll take a hack at the front end support for
__sync_synchronize after this
2011 Jun 18
0
[LLVMdev] Make dragonegg work with gcc-4.6
Hi, Duncan
I saw you started to port dragonegg to gcc 4.6, which is a good news.
And I am also trying to do that. The attachment get src/Convert.cpp to
compile against gcc-4.6.
Now I get a error while compiling dragonegg,
---
Compiling Debug.cpp
/tmp/chenwj/dragonegg/src/Debug.cpp: In member function 'llvm::DIType llvm::DebugInfo::createArrayType(tree_node*)':
2008 Feb 15
2
[LLVMdev] llvm.atomic.barrier implementation
On Feb 15, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> On 2/15/08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote:
>> I'll take a hack at the front end support for
>> __sync_synchronize after this goes in.
>
> This is the gcc side of the patch.
Thanks for tackling this Andrew.
Please prepare a patch for LangRef.html that explains what this thing
does :). What
2008 Feb 15
3
[LLVMdev] llvm.atomic.barrier implementation
On Feb 15, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> On 2/15/08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote:
>> I'll take a hack at the front end support for
>> __sync_synchronize after this goes in.
>
> This is the gcc side of the patch.
GCC 4.2 compiles this to a no-op on x86:
void foo() {
__sync_synchronize();
}
Are you seeing different behavior?