search for: nlewycki

I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/include -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -g

Nick Lewycky wrote: > I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: > > make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' > llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc > g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/include -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE

2009/6/30 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> > Nick Lewycky wrote: > > I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: > > > > make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' > > llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc > > g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang >

Initially, tt was not a problem with the verifier, we were just inserting a wrong instruction in our pass. Also we were able to figure out the error you pointed out and our pass is running as intended!!! Thanks a lot. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Adarsh Yoga wrote: > >> I was able to solve that >> > > What was wrong? I

First Thursday in August is this Thursday – will the Bay Area social going to take place that day? From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Marshall Clow Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:26 PM To: Nick Lewycky Cc: lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; clang-dev Developers; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Bay Area LLVM Social - July On

Next bay-area social is this week! Thursday August 9th at St. Stephens Green! Come socialize, try to recruit patch reviewers with beer, or just talk about any subject management hasn't asked you not to. Just like every llvm social! If you wouldn't mind RSVP'ing on http://llvmbayarea.appspot.com , that will help me get us the right sized space at the restaurant. Looking forward to

I was able to solve that but still crashing with the same error saying "Unreachable executed". I have attached the output with this mail. Thanks in advance. On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Adarsh Yoga wrote: > >> Yes. Intially the pass was crashing when the module when the module >> verifier was running. I was able to

Adarsh Yoga wrote: > I was able to solve that What was wrong? I wasn't able to reproduce it and would still like to teach the verifier whatever it missed. but still crashing with the same error saying > "Unreachable executed". I have attached the output with this mail. This time you've got: %1 = load i32** getelementptr inbounds ({ i32* }* @structobj, i64 0, i32

Currently llvm-dwarfdump isn't very useful on ELF .o files because it doesn't apply relocations. nlewycky at ducttape:~$ llvm-dwarfdump helloworld.o | grep debug_str\\[ 0x0000000c: DW_AT_producer [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000000] = "clang version 3.2 (trunk 163034)") 0x00000012: DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000000] = "clang version 3.2 (trunk

On 31 July 2012 14:18, Kipping, David <dkipping at qualcomm.com> wrote: > First Thursday in August is this Thursday – will the Bay Area social > going to take place that day? > Tomorrow has a couple conflicts with sports events (a Giants game and an A's game). Thursday the 9th there's another Giants game but nothing else. Let's hold it then. Sorry for the

Is LLVM IR more than a compiler IR? Have we made progress on moving to git? And how does the greedy allocator work anyways? This month's LLVM social is happening today, at 7pm in a new location! I'm looking forward to seeing everyone there! Nick On 28 September 2011 15:20, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > If you're in the bay area next week and would like to

If you're in the bay area next week and would like to socialize with your peers in an environment where talk about LLVM is encouraged, then you should come to the LLVM Bay-Area Social! The next LLVM bay-area social will be Wednesday, Oct 5th, but at a new location! Yard House in San Jose isn't the most transit accessible, so we'd appreciate anyone willing to drive others. On the plus

I wish I was in bay area. :-) 2011/10/5 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> > Is LLVM IR more than a compiler IR? Have we made progress on moving to git? > And how does the greedy allocator work anyways? > > This month's LLVM social is happening today, at 7pm in a new location! I'm > looking forward to seeing everyone there! > > Nick > > On 28 September

On 6/20/2012 11:55 PM, Ashok Nalkund wrote: > On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote: >> On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com >>> <mailto:nlewycky at google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency

It's a new month already, and with a new month comes a new LLVM social! If you're in the bay area on Wednesday, December 7th, join your peers at St. Stephen's Green in Mountain View starting at 7pm and running until 11pm-ish, usually. This is walking distance from the Mountain View Caltrain and VTA stations, and they'll have great beer, drinks, and tasty food. As is the norm,

On 6/20/2012 11:00 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote: > On 06/21/12 12:47 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com >> <mailto:nlewycky at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs >> to stay around? Are there developers stuck on

Yes. Intially the pass was crashing when the module when the module verifier was running. I was able to solve that and now it is crashing when the bit writer pass is running. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 5 May 2010 17:12, Adarsh Yoga <ayoga at umail.iu.edu> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've written a pass

Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement? If nobody pipes up, I might actually try actually removing it! Nick -------------- next part

All things LLVM are welcome at LLVM bay-area social, happening this Thursday at Tied House in Mountain View starting at 7pm. Those details are repeated on the website, http://llvmbayarea.appspot.com where you are encouraged to register your interest, so I can let Tied House know how many people are coming. There won't be an LLVM bay-area social in January (at least, I'm not planning one

On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that the cmake build system doesn't implement? > > If