search for: chumbi

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19213 Summary: it can't support chumby widgets function Product: swfdec Version: unspecified Platform: x86 (IA32) OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: library AssignedTo: swfdec at lists.freedesktop.org

My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate that 3.0 release requires some some beefy machines to build. It is not so much raw cpu speed but memory and lots of it. My builds got to linking llc and at that point linker started eating megabytes of memory like chocolate. So sadly chumbys, beagleboards, iThingis(?), Raspberry Pis, Gumstix and even inexpensive Tegra2 boards seem to be out of

On 10/17/2011 09:20 AM, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > > My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate > that 3.0 release requires some some beefy machines to build. > It is not so much raw cpu speed but memory and lots of it. > My builds got to linking llc and at that point linker started > eating megabytes of memory like chocolate. > > So sadly chumbys, beagleboards,

Admittedly we're very interested in becoming ARM backend maintainers as our product heavily relies on LLVM. However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM on a host of target boards. We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones, iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc. And most of those are already booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which

I'm the code owner of LLVM codegen and targets. I'm also the one of main developers on the original ARM target. That means, I would make the decisions on major development on ARM target if there are decisions to be made. But my role is very different from what people are looking for in this thread. To properly qualify a target like ARM which are supported on many different CPUs and

I think we need a group of maintainers rather than a single maintainer given the spectrum of ARM targets/ISAs/platforms required to support and the amount of people/system resources required. I & my team plan to actively participate in the bug-fixing process during the release cycle. If we can divide the bugs among the maintainers and establish a requirement that all open ARM bugs must be

I see, so perhaps the LLVM ARM Backend is in need of a method of organizing volunteer qualifiers, as releases near? Has this generally been organized via this mailing list? Joe Joe Abbey Software Architect Arxan Technologies, Inc. 1305 Cumberland Ave, Ste 215 West Lafayette, IN 47906 W: 765-889-4756 x2 C: 765-464-9893 jabbey at arxan.com<mailto:jabbey at arxan.com>

On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Raja Venkateswaran wrote: > I think we need a group of maintainers rather than a single maintainer given the spectrum of ARM targets/ISAs/platforms required to support and the amount of people/system resources required. I & my team plan to actively participate in the bug-fixing process during the release cycle. If we can divide the bugs among the maintainers

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM > on a host of target boards.  We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones, > iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc.  And most of those are already > booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which are based on

Also, was this with binutils-gold? -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Tobias Grosser Sent: 17 October 2011 09:56 To: Pawel Wodnicki Cc: llvmdev Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLC ARM Backend maintainer On 10/17/2011 09:20 AM, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > > My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate > that

On 11 October 2011 18:22, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > 1. We should define which ARM-related features (in general, e.g. > platforms, cores, modes, etc.) we consider "release important" > 2. We should define the conditions how the features in 1. should be tested > 3. Someone should perform such testing for each release, provide help > with

Hi James, > It goes without saying that I +1 this. Well, the answer should be pretty easy, I think: 1. We should define which ARM-related features (in general, e.g. platforms, cores, modes, etc.) we consider "release important" 2. We should define the conditions how the features in 1. should be tested 3. Someone should perform such testing for each release, provide help with

> The ARM Holdings emulator does this; I used it with great success to > profile an Advanced Encryption Standard encryptor a while back. It is indeed a useful piece of kit. We do a lot of our internal regression tests on it, and also run LLVM's regression tests every night on it (as well as PlumHall, EEMBC and SpecInt). Unfortunately it's not exactly software we can give away or

Well how about as a strawman... taking some options from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_microprocessor_cores and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_of_ARM_cores LLVM Supports: ARMv4T -> ARM7TDMI ARMv5TE -> ARM926EJ-S -> XScale ARMv6 -> ARM1136J(F)-S ARMv6ZK -> ARM1176JZ(F)-S ARMv7A -> Cortex-A8 Cortex-A9 ARMv7M -> Cortex-M3