search for: mierle

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Keir Mierle <mierle at gmail.com> wrote: > Justs to chime in: I'm one of the gtest devs. I'd like to add that gtest is > very portable, more so than llvm; it even works on WinCE and blackberry. If > there are specific features needed by LLVM, depending on what it is I may be > able to...

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been using gtest (http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) for all of > my frontend unit tests and I'm very happy with it. It does all of that > automatic test discovery stuff pretty well. I haven't tried the XML test > report generation stuff, but it does have that capability. Justs to chime

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/12/29 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > >> Do the existing tests use a wildcard rule to gather all test sources? We >> would need to insure that the wildcard rule for the unit tests and the large >> tests are mutually exclusive. >> > > By "large tests", I

...16.87 Run 8 10480568.5 9568849.4 911719.1 8.7 Run 9 10857968.2 9306331.6 1551636.6 14.29 Run 10 10584116.6 9578764.8 1005351.8 9.5 Average 10696687.14 9563046.99 1133640.15 10.58 Standard deviation 172714.92 300445.48 345992.26 3.13 Cheers, Olivier. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Keir Mierle <mierle at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: >> >> 2009/9/14 Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan at auroraux.org>: >> > screw that site, its useless info run by a linux gnu zealot. &g...

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > 2009/9/14 Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan at auroraux.org>: > > screw that site, its useless info run by a linux gnu zealot. > > Well, being a Linux GNU zealot doesn't invalidate numbers. What does > invalidate is that he has no numbers! > > He just fired a few

On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:01 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > And the fact that Boostbook knows how to import Doxygen XML output is a > killer feature. Having a hardcopy of the Doxygen reference can be > really useful. > > I agree with Chris that at the moment, BoostBook/QuickBook is too hard > to set up. I'm certainly not about to use bcp magic and litter my > workspace with

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Keir Mierle <mierle at gmail.com> wrote: > Just a random observation from the Python world: Once Sphinx started taking > over as the dominant documentation tool, the quality of Python documentation > greatly improved. This is not just because sphinx produces well formatted > docs; it appears...

And the followup: http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-llvm-probably-wont-replace-c.html On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr at codedgers.com> wrote: > > This may be of interest: > > http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-against-cllvm.html > > People implementing a new Haskell compiler explain why LLVM is an > unsuitable target

OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:42 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>>> OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Russell Wallace > <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > > When implementing a language using LLVM as the backend, it is > > necessary to give programs written in that language, access to the C > > standard library functions. The Kaleidoscope

...y push for gtest vs Boost Test or a different test suite? I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone makes a patch for it? Regards Mark Kromis On Dec 27, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Keir Mierle wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> > wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a...

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit > test > > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is > mainly > > a

This may be of interest: http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-against-cllvm.html People implementing a new Haskell compiler explain why LLVM is an unsuitable target for them.

Hi all, I'd like to coordinate a LLVM sprint at Google in Mountain View. I discussed this with Chris at the LLVM developers day, but didn't get around to figuring out the logistics until now. I'm emailing here to take a survey of what works best for people: 1. Pick all that work for you: weekdays, weekends, evenings. 2. Pick a time frame that you like best: October, early December,

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > >> Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or >> a different test suite? >> I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with