search for: cedarswampstudio

I can't see why you'd want to do this, no. -eric On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Isaac Dupree < ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > Is the C backend at all suitable to be adapted to emit OpenCL code? Or > do the target-dependence, and/or things that C can do but OpenCL can't, > make that hopeless? > -Isaac > > On 08/19/2014 03:08 PM, Carback, Richard T., III wrote: > > It provides...

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > On 03/06/10 18:03, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Isaac Dupree >> <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org>  wrote: >>> >>> On 03/06/10 17:37, OvermindDL1 wrote: >>>> >>>> Whoops, mailing list...

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : >> >> Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. >> >> They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM >> libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. >> >> Jose >> > > Are you volontary

I tried the LLVM demo with unmodified settings http://llvm.org/demo/index.cgi (same results from llvm 2.6 with clang, `clang-cc -emit-llvm -O2 test.c`, on my Linux x86_64) For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if I'm understanding C standards correctly). "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] was optimized to be equivalent to "void f()

It provides a useful starting point, but I agree with Jim that it is not a complete solution and requires rework of the results in a lot cases. I think we could improve it further to address these issues but that work is nontrivial. If you are deciding between a quick and dirty implementation of a custom backend vs. the C backend, then the C backend is sometimes preferable in my experience

On 02/28/10 07:39, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Isaac, > >> For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if >> I'm understanding C standards correctly). >> >> "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] >> was optimized to be equivalent to "void f() {}"[also 1]. I believe it >> should either be equivalent in

On 11/09/10 22:27, Samuel Crow wrote: >> It shouldn't compile. You have the method declared inside the templated class >> thus indicating infinite recursion. No, the method is not in the class. It is a function that returns a T<4> and takes (approximately) a reference to a multidimensional array of T<4>s. In fact it compiles fine for me, with no warnings, under

On 12/16/10 17:42, Lu Mitnick wrote: > Hello all, > > I want to the do followings: > > (1) Modify the LLVM front-end(clang) to support EFI C > > (2) Add EFI Byte Code target to LLVM > > I am wondering to know which task should I do first, modify front end or > porting LLVM? You might want to look at the challenges discussed in this thread, mainly that pointer size