search for: kelman

Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes: > This comes up now and then. >  > Yes, the packages would be a lot bigger, but IIRC the problem is also > that we don't have a good way to build to build LLVM into a shared > library on Windows that's suitable for shipping. I don't remember the > details here; maybe Reid does. Some of the

I’m trying to figure out how to build compiler-rt 3.5.0 with Visual Studio 2013. In an autotools build or cmake on Linux, I believe putting the compiler-rt sources under llvm/projects is enough to build them automatically. Do I need to do anything specific to get the same with MSVC? I've tried setting -DLLVM_BUILD_EXTERNAL_COMPILER_RT either ON or OFF, but can't find any evidence of

...if this is correct. > > Chris, > I have attached a patch which should fix the typo. Would you mind having a look and committing if you think it is all good? > > Hope you both have a good day. > > Thanks, > Mike Edwards > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Tony Kelman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I need to build libLLVM (individual static libraries are fine at the >> moment) using mingw-w64 cross compilers, i686-w64-mingw32-gcc and >> (separately) x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc. I'd like this to work from both >>...

On 02/17/2016 07:23 PM, Tony Kelman via llvm-dev wrote: > Richard Pennington via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> I use ELLCC to cross compile all the tools for various Linux targets and >> for Windows. Yesterday, after updating the LLVM sources, I got the >> following error whe...

I need to build libLLVM (individual static libraries are fine at the moment) using mingw-w64 cross compilers, i686-w64-mingw32-gcc and (separately) x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc. I'd like this to work from both Linux and Cygwin build environments. With autotools, this worked fine: ../configure --host=i686-w64-mingw32 and that's it (with mingw32-gcc-c++ installed on Fedora 23, also works fine on

This is mostly to Hans since he builds these AIUI, but would be worth getting others' opinions too. I'd like to ask whether building the Windows binaries *without* LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY could be considered and tried. Would the result be a prohibitive amount larger than the current installer? LLVM is an incredibly useful set of libraries and has many use cases, including on Windows,

Dear r-help@, A while ago I tried to bundle packages for offline installations. For this I created a script that would access ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/src/contrib/ for each package in a loop. The first trial was bugous and it generated many bad URL requests to cran.r-project.org >From that moment I was not able to access r-project.org. My IP address is 87.70.177.68 Can you please help?

...ps before deleting them in a seperate process at the end of the rsync. Am I the only one who would like something like this? Is there already a way to do this using rsync tricks? I'm interested in any ideas people may have about this. Thanks for your time! --- Jason Marshall, Unix Geek, Kelman Technologies, Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada. From a Sun Microsystems bug report (#4102680): "Workaround: don't pound on the mouse like a wild monkey." "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." -Edgar Allan Poe

Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev <at> lists.llvm.org> writes: > > This is a little more complex. SVN is very conservative on history, > > and that saves us from destroying the origin. Git, on the other hand, > > allows anyone with write access to completely wipe out the repo. I > > don't think anyone would want to, but accidents do happen in git. >

Hi, I recently switched over to using cmake to build my clang/LLVM based ELLCC cross development project (http://ellcc.org). I also recently updated to LLVM svn version 258915 from 258477. I use ELLCC to cross compile all the tools for various Linux targets and for Windows. Yesterday, after updating the LLVM sources, I got the following error when cross building for MinGW: [ 3%] Built

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Kristof, Chandler, > > I think most of the responses seem favourable of the move, the > concerns being which Git repo we'll use (GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket), > but they're essentially identical on the git side. > > Infrastructure decisions will need to be