Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "getpointertofunctionlazi".
Did you mean:
getpointertofunctionlazy
2009 Oct 30
2
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
On 2009-10-29 23:55, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
> <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>>> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>>>
>>>
>> Great! Thanks.
>>
>> Just to clarify things: on my end, it
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
Hi Jeffrey,
Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>
Great! Thanks.
Just to clarify things: on my end, it doesn't really matter what is the
default behavior, as long as vmkit can continue to have the existing
behavior of lazy compilation. With Chris' solution, I was wondering how
you would implement the getPointerToFunction{Eager, Lazy} functions when
2009 Nov 01
1
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
On 2009-11-01 08:40, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2009-10-29 23:55, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
>>> <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>>>
>>>>
2009 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
2009/10/30 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
> On 2009-10-29 23:55, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
>> <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>>>>
>>>>
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
<nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>>
>
> Great! Thanks.
>
> Just to clarify things: on my end, it doesn't really matter what is the
> default behavior, as long as vmkit can continue to have the existing
>
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
Cool, I'll start implementing it.
Thanks all for the decision!
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> I have no objection to Chris' proposal.
>
> Evan
>
> On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
>> Are you objecting to Chris's proposal? I was waiting to implement it
>> until you replied so I
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
I have no objection to Chris' proposal.
Evan
On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Are you objecting to Chris's proposal? I was waiting to implement it
> until you replied so I wouldn't have to implement two things. I
> disagree with a lot of what you wrote below, but it's not worth
> arguing about if there's a compromise we can both live with.