search for: bwendl

...quot;--debug-pass=Arguments"); -// Breaks the x86-darwin build -// if (flag_exceptions) -// Args.push_back("--enable-eh"); // If there are options that should be passed through to the LLVM backend // directly from the command line, do so now. This is mainly for debugging [bwendling:llvm-eh] svn diff gcc/config/linux.h Index: gcc/config/linux.h =================================================================== --- gcc/config/linux.h (revision 41554) +++ gcc/config/linux.h (working copy) @@ -113,8 +113,9 @@ if (flag_pic) \ argvec...

On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Jan Sjodin wrote: > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: >> >>> On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: >>>> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? >>>> >>> >>> Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? >> >> While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on

----- Original Message ---- > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > To: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 3:26:35 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > >>

On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Fraser Cormack wrote: > > I'm trying to link two modules together using the C++ API, one that's a sort > of library module and one that's being generated from the source language. > > If I have something like this: > > OwningPtr<MemoryBuffer> owning_ptr; > if (MemoryBuffer::getFile(StringRef("../hello.bc"),

On May 1, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> Could you give an example of how yours would look like in a sample Module? > > Something similar to yours: > > !llvm.module.flags.lto = !{ !0, !1 } > !llvm.module.flags.cg = !{ !0 } > > !0 = metadata !{ i32 1, metadata !"soft-float", i1 true } // forcing > soft float all the way through > !1 =

If you compile this with optimizations, then the 'canary()' function should be totally inlined into the 'main()' function. In that case, the cost of the stack protectors will be very small compared to the loop. -bw On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Job Noorman <jobnoorman at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a question about the performance of the implementation of the stack >

On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> Could we add: >>> >>> - A landing pad block is not the destination of any other kind of terminator. Only unwind edges are allowed. >>> >>> - The landingpad