search for: oberhum

Hi all, as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update You can browse the branch at https://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux/compare/lzo-update I''d ask some official kernel maintainer for review and to push this into linux-next so that it will hopefully land in the 3.7 release. Share and enjoy, Markus Signed-off-...

...going to set up a nightly cron script to checkout the latest and greatest llvm branch, strip the naughty bits, tarball, and then post on llvm.org. An announcement will be made here when it's available. We hope this will suffice. Cheers, -- Jim On Jun 1, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris, > > I would like to start testing llvm-gcc4 on linux, but I'd very much > prefer a public CVS or SVN repo for staying up to date and to be > able to provide useful patches. Is this available somewhere? > > ~Markus > > Chris Lattner wrote: >&g...

...y right now. I would rather defer to him on this patch. He might not get to it until next week so I just wanted to let you know that there might be a bit of a delay before this patch hits mainline. I've already committed your configure changes. Reid. On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 21:42, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Hello folks, > > with the small patch attached below the whole llvm toolchain (llvm & llvm-gcc) > will compile and run under AMD64 Linux in native 64-bit LP64 mode. > > This means that compilation, bytecode management and CWriter output all work > as expected...

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:01:40AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer > >wrote: Have you considered using bugpoint for your codegen debugging > >needs? http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/Bugpoint.html#codegendebug > > Well, the (critical) bug in...

Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Hello folks, > > with the small patch attached below the whole llvm toolchain (llvm & llvm-gcc) > will compile and run under AMD64 Linux in native 64-bit LP64 mode. > > This means that compilation, bytecode management and CWriter output all work > as expected...

Dear LLVMers, If you live on the bleeding edge (i.e. CVS version), please read! On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Do you really want external patches for this ? A simple Perl script > that runs on all *.h and *.cpp files, and a local commit from your > side would be much simpler. I'm in the process of doing just this as we speak. What this means: please hold off updating in the mean...

"Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <markus.oberhumer at jk.uni-linz.ac.at> writes: > Package: ssh > Version: 1.2.1pre24-1 > Severity: important > > I've just upgraded from ssh-nonfree to openssh and it seems > that openssh doesn't allow an additional `=' in the > config file options -...

I will definately look into this tonight and see if it is a problem with my recent patch. On Wednesday 02 March 2005 3:39 am, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 22:07, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >>Follow up: After removing the dangling symlink the problem now looks: > >> > >>-march=c((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x1e)[0x847a17e] > >>-fno-...

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > sys::Program::ExecuteAndWait() requires that the first element in "args" > should be the name of the program, but (at least) llvm-ld.cpp and gccld.cpp > fail to do so, thereby effectively swallowing the first parameter. > This is the reason that -native-cbe has no...

It's correct; the win32 version also expects the first arg to be the name of the program. Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> sys::Program::ExecuteAndWait() requires that the first element in >>> "args" should be the name of the program, but (at least) llvm-ld.cpp >>> an...

Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer schrieb: > The reason behind this is that llvm-gcc is based on a pre-3.4 snapshot > ("3.4-llvm 20030924") then it's not unlikely that these are llvm bugs since my code also compiles with gcc 3.3 filed PR 551 and 552 -- Stefan Strasser

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:01:40AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> While trying to hunt down a codegen bug (not yet found) ... >> >> Have you considered using bugpoint for your codegen debugging needs? >> ht...

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 17:56 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: > > If a specific value for these is > > needed on a given platform, then we need to implement something like > > "getDefaultUserId" and "getDefaultGroupId" functions in lib/System and > > use those in lib/Bytecode/A...

Yeah, that's fine. I'll change it soon. Reid. On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 18:32 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 17:56 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > > > >>Reid Spencer wrote: > >>> If a specific value for these is > >>> needed on a given platform, then we need to implement something like >...

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:13:44AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:32:25AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >>[...] > >>bugpoint: Unknown command line argument '-instcombine-load-vn'. Try: > >>'bugpoint --help' > > > >You need a sp...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >>> many thanks once more for your quick fix for this issue. Actually the >>> current CVS version is the first version since llvm-1.3 which does not >>> miscompile the UCL li...

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris, > Chris Lattner wrote: >> For anyone who is interested: >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html > > many congrats, and best wishes for the future! Thanks all! > And I hope you still will have some time to look after LLVM and wo...

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long >>> needed implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's >>> possibl...

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >>> but looking at the disassembly suggests that this might mainly be an issue >>> of x86 codegen, which is rather young as compared to other compilers. >> If you're testing...

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like >>> this pseudo-diff should probably get applied. >> >> >> What does this impac...