search for: emk

I''ve got unit tests for a class library that I''m using in a rails project. Currently this is the only project using this library so I would like to keep the classes and tests in the rails project. I moved the classes under [app]/lib. I currently have the tests in [app]/test. It would be great if these tests were run every time I run ''rake''. What is everyone

...b/src/public/images/tab_bg.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1385ccc0303c5a3819822b3140181c456310ac25 GIT binary patch literal 174 zcmeAS at N?(olHy`uVBq!ia0vp^Ahs3<6Od&66MF|pNtU=qlmzFem6RtIr7}3C<R_&n zc;+Uirv{}arc at T5Otk?j3h;Ds45_$vX0jn4g8~P$=EMK<OADR;Hk4*?Y>Hdwz#(D$ zHg03j)ZnU|RqjQ5;vNcAd3R at 8F!b%roz#2kV%FPZ1=HWXePO*qB<>fR{A1k%47=?4 VI-QIdgn?!=c)I$ztaD0e0s!hTJX8Px literal 0 HcmV?d00001 diff --git a/src/public/stylesheets/cloud/layout.css b/src/public/stylesheets/cloud/layout.css index 60b5c91..d40b4ab 100644 --- a/src/publi...

(I''ve had this patch lying around for a couple of weeks, waiting for Trac to come back up. noradio''s already had a look at it on IRC. What''s the best way to submit patches while Trac is down?) with_scope doesn''t support :order in the presence of :include. For example: {{{ # We''re testing the interaction between :order, :include, and

On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Unfortunately, this generates really weird code on the LLVM 1.6 > PowerPC backend: > > LBB_matches_1: ; regex6 > lbz r4, 0(r3) > LBB_matches_2: ; NodeBlock > rlwinm r5, r4, 0, 24, 31 > cmplwi cr0, r5, 98 > blt cr0, LBB_matches_4 ; LeafBlock > LBB_matches_3: ; LeafBlock1 >

If I try to link HowToUseJIT.cpp against the JIT without also linking the interpreter, I get the following linker error: ld: Undefined symbols: __ZN4llvm11Interpreter6createEPNS_6ModuleEPNS_17IntrinsicLoweringE It's not obvious, from the source, what depends on this symbol, or why GenLibDep.pl didn't detect this dependency. Linking against the interpreter fixes this. Cheers, Eric

On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:37 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. >> engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine using either a JIT or >> interpreter. >> all: All LLVM libraries. >> >> Please feel free to suggest better names. :-) > > Instead of 'engine', how about

Reid and I have identified a number of problems with llvm-config, which I'll be looking into this week: 1) llvm-config doesn't always pick up system libraries needed to link. This should be an easy fix, although it will require Makefile changes. 2) In-tree linking doesn't work. I'm not sure why out-of-tree linking with llvm-config works better than in-tree linking.

On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Great. Note that -cee is a beta pass... it has some known bugs and > isn't planned to be worked on in the immediate future. :( After a bit of digging, I found one open bug and two failing test cases, all of which appear to be feature requests: #217: LLVM needs a generic dominator update mechanism nullpointer.ll: "a

On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> LLVMCodeGen.o LLVMSelectionDAG.o libLLVMAnalysis.a >>> libLLVMTarget.a >>> libLLVMTransformUtils.a libLLVMipa.a > > CodeGen should depend on Target, but not the other way around. > LLVMIPA should depend on LLVMAnalysis, but certainly nothing in the > list should depend on LLVMIPA. If you knew

On Mar 23, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Reid Spencer wrote: > I dunno. You want me to actually think about this stuff? :) > > I'd have to derive the actual set of required libraries, but I'm > lacking > motivation for that task right now. OK, here's my current minimalist proposal: backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine

On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Reid Spencer wrote: > In looking at tools, we should also look at the example programs > and the > projects such as Stacker. For example, it would be nice to have a > virtual component that includes the libraries necessary for an LLVM > front end translator (source -> llvm bytecode). It would also be nice > to have a virtual component that

To ease portability headaches, I'd like to support several virtual "components" in llvm-config. Possibilities include: all: Include all LLVM libraries. backend: Include either a working native backend or cbackend. engine: Include a working subclass of ExecutionEngine, either the JIT or interpreter. You could, for example, get a typical set of JIT-related libs using:

On Mar 16, 2006, at 2:16 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> OK! Would something like the following interface be a reasonable >> first approach? >> >> llvm-config (--cxxflags | --ldflags | --libs) (all | jit) >> --cxxflags: Flags to use when compiling C++ source code. >> --ldflags: Linker flags to use when linking

Reid added some nice inter-library dependency data to utils/llvm- config/LibDeps.txt. There are three sets of circular dependencies between LLVM libraries. If you use any library from one of these sets, you may need to pull in the rest: LLVMCodeGen.o LLVMSelectionDAG.o libLLVMAnalysis.a libLLVMTarget.a libLLVMTransformUtils.a libLLVMipa.a LLVMSparcV9.o LLVMSparcV9InstrSched.o

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> The duplicate loads appear at the top of the %regex6 and %regex2 >> blocks below. I've tried various alias analysis implementations >> either alone or in combination. > > LICM doesn't remove common subexpressions, also -load-vn doesn't > affect LICM. Try

On Mar 14, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Gnome (and many other Unix projects with massively ugly >> dependencies) can be linked trivially using a "foo-config" script. >> If LLVM had something similar, it might save new LLVM developers >> several hours of digging through manuals and Makefiles. > > This would be very very cool to have. OK!

Hello! I'm considering using LLVM for several different projects in the future, so I'm conducting a technical evaluation. So far, the APIs and the benchmark results look absolutely great. Things I really like: 1) LLVM is low-level enough to support most languages that run on standard hardware. 2) The JIT examples are really straightforward. 3) The documentation is remarkably good. 4)

On Mar 10, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Martin Pärtel wrote: > I'm currently using the "make install"-ed version of LLVM in an > autoconf/automake project. Setting it up wasn't that bad really. > The .a > libraries can be statically linked with the -l flag and .o > libraries are > simply linked in as normal object files (without -l). All the > libraries got >