search for: macrubi

Hi, We have a problem concerning LLVM optimizations and overflows in MacRuby. I reduced that to the following (architecture x86-64): $ cat e.c #include <stdio.h> long foo(void); int main() { const long a = foo(); const long b = foo(); const long res = a * b; fprintf(stderr, "0x%lx 0x%lx 0x%lx 0x%lx\n", res, a, b, res / a); return 0; } $ cat e2.c long

Hello, We have been investigating a crash in our application that may be related to how stack frames are generated by the JIT. We observe it with LLVM 2.9, but not with LLVM 2.8, everything else being the same. The crash occurs when dynamically generated code calls code that tries to unwind the stack. Here is what the stack trace looks like on MacOSX 10.6 : 0 libSystem.B.dylib

does somebody use XCode on Mac for RoR instead of TextMate? I wonder how is it compared to TextMate... TextMate uses the default font of Monaco... the Xcode screenshot on Wikipedia uses Courier... I wonder if Xcode looks as good as TextMate when the font is changed to Monaco as well? Thank you. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

This may be bogus, but do you have: llvm::JITExceptionHandling = true; for the code that generates the dynamic code? It has been a while, but I don't recall what will happen when dynamic code, generated with jit exception handling turned off, invokes libraries which in turn try to unwind the stack via the libunwind api. However given that you say the code works with 2.8, my concern

i''ve been reading docs and blundering my way through a simple puppet client/server setup between two test hosts (puppetmasterd on server 10.5.8, puppet client on client 10.6.2) and am wondering if there''s any current definitive guide for configuring puppet for os x systems. it also seems the gems installed on my client with ruby 1.9.1 as default don''t work very well

On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: > On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies > > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand what tail > > calls LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate? > > Mutual recursion for a start: >

On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 01:12:55 Simon Harris wrote: >> I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for >> "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing >> implementation to discard the stack frame for the caller before executing >> the callee. I

Hi LLVM Friends, Fans, Followers and Fanatics, LLVM 2.6 is live! You can download it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ and read about it here: http://llvm.org/releases/2.6/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This release includes approximately 6 months of development that provide major enhancements and new features over the LLVM 2.5 release. This includes significantly better X86-64 code generation,