search for: clatt

I found that llvm-db is the front end for lib/Debugger. I would like to ask you if there is anyone who is actively working on this problem, and if you any specific directions/goals/wish list ~Ioannis On Sep 27, 6:41 pm, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:34 PM, idoud wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > I would like to ask what is the status concerning llvm-db. When I am > > trying to use it I get the following error: > > "Error: No supported binding to inferior pr...

...1.5 client but not with 1.4.6. Did anybody see this with a 1.4.6 (or older) client? Btw. what is the server version? Anyway this seems to be a bug in subversion. Cheers, Gabor PS: http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=79361 On Jul 1, 5:27 am, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > Devang removed the old llvm/tools/lto directory and renamed lto2 ->   > lto.  The end result of this is that 'svn up' may complain.  If you   > get an error about this from svn, just do: > > $ rm -rf llvm/tools/lto* > $ svn up llvm/tools &gt...

Devang removed the old llvm/tools/lto directory and renamed lto2 -> lto. The end result of this is that 'svn up' may complain. If you get an error about this from svn, just do: $ rm -rf llvm/tools/lto* $ svn up llvm/tools to fix it, -Chris

...t; wrote: > I found that llvm-db is the front end for lib/Debugger. > > I would like to ask you if there is anyone who is actively working on > this problem, > and if you any specific directions/goals/wish list > > ~Ioannis > > > On Sep 27, 6:41 pm, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: >> On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:34 PM, idoud wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> I would like to ask what is the status concerning llvm-db. When I am >>> trying to use it I get the following error: >>> "Error: No...

On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:34 PM, idoud wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to ask what is the status concerning llvm-db. When I am > trying to use it I get the following error: > "Error: No supported binding to inferior processes (debugger not > implemented)." > > Searching in the mailing list I found that you have discontinued > working on it. > > I would like to

The SCCP pass was failing an assertion that I traced back to SCCPSolver::visitExtractValueInst. getStructValueState was used on the aggregate operand even if it had no structure type. I added a check to use getStructValueState for structs and getValueState for other operands. This behavior was introduced in r85793. Please note that I'm not sure whether my changes correctly address this

On Nov 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Stephan Reiter wrote: > The SCCP pass was failing an assertion that I traced back to > SCCPSolver::visitExtractValueInst. getStructValueState was used on the > aggregate operand even if it had no structure type. I added a check to > use getStructValueState for structs and getValueState for other > operands. > > This behavior was introduced in

Hi, I would like to ask what is the status concerning llvm-db. When I am trying to use it I get the following error: "Error: No supported binding to inferior processes (debugger not implemented)." Searching in the mailing list I found that you have discontinued working on it. I would like to ask if there are any plans to resume development and if you are looking for any volunteers to

On 3 Nov., 10:06, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote: > > > I am interested in making my LLVM front-end multi-threaded in a way > > similar to the GCC compiler server proposal and was wondering about   > > the > > extent that the LLVM pass...

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

On Nov 2, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote: > I am interested in making my LLVM front-end multi-threaded in a way > similar to the GCC compiler server proposal and was wondering about > the > extent that the LLVM passes support it. Do you have a link for this? I'm not familiar with any parallelism proposed by that project. My understanding was that it was mostly

I am interested in making my LLVM front-end multi-threaded in a way similar to the GCC compiler server proposal and was wondering about the extent that the LLVM passes support it. Expression-at-a-time parallel construction: If function definitions are built purely depth-first, such that the parent pointers are not provided as they are created, what will break? I noted that the function and module

Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified