Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "elliottslaughter".
2013 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] Parsing C++ headers with Clang bindings for Python
Hi Elliott,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Elliott Slaughter <elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Answering my own question:
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Elliott Slaughter <elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C h...
2013 Oct 19
0
[LLVMdev] Parsing C++ headers with Clang bindings for Python
Answering my own question:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Elliott Slaughter <
elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings
> for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C header, but for my
> purposes I want to pretend that it is C++.) For some reason, Clang is able
> to parse the file as C, but not...
2013 Oct 19
2
[LLVMdev] Parsing C++ headers with Clang bindings for Python
I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings
for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C header, but for my
purposes I want to pretend that it is C++.) For some reason, Clang is able
to parse the file as C, but not as C++.
Here is an example session:
>>> import clang.cindex
>>> idx = clang.cindex.Index.create()
>>> tu =
2012 Dec 30
0
[LLVMdev] Extending GC infrastructure for roots in SSA values
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk
> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2012, at 01:54, Talin wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with your point about wanting to be able to attach GC
> metadata to a type (rather than attaching it to a value, as is done now).
> In the past, there have been two objections to this approach: first, the
> overhead
2012 Dec 30
2
[LLVMdev] Extending GC infrastructure for roots in SSA values
On 30 Dec 2012, at 01:54, Talin wrote:
> I completely agree with your point about wanting to be able to attach GC metadata to a type (rather than attaching it to a value, as is done now). In the past, there have been two objections to this approach: first, the overhead that would be added to the Pointer type - the vast majority of LLVM users don't want to have to pay an extra 4-8 bytes per