search for: parashift

...llvm-as interprets "-" as using standard output (cout), so llvm-as < > input.ll -o - | opt has the same behavior. You'll actually find a > comment on it in llvm-as.cpp, so I guess I shouldn't hold out hope that > there's a good way to do it. Please see: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/input-output.html#faq-15.13 We'd welcome patches to do this, and we can localize this in our system support library, but you'd have to figure out the magic to make this happen on win32. -Chris

Hello, I'm getting bitten by the "static initialization order fiasco" http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.12 The static data causing the problem is the static TypeMap<PointerValType, PointerType> PointerTypes; and other typemaps. The background is that in our product we are using an overridden new operator to track memory allocations. This system is intializ...

...ain(int, char **)': % bug.cpp:20: Internal compiler error in `const_hash', at varasm.c:2373 % Please submit a full bug report. % See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html> for instructions. I have tested the same source (which is an adoption from the C++ FAQ-lite, http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/pointers-to-members.html) an the following systems: Success: GCC 2.9.2, SunOS 5.8 Generic_108528-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60 GCC 3.2.2, SunOS 5.8 Generic_108528-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60 GCC 2.9.6 (redhat) , Linux athalle1 2.4.18-27.7.xsmp #1 SMP Same compiler error:...

...> > That is correct. That function and only that function will be called. > What happens in that function is up to you :) > So, I tried this the last two days, but to no avail. I first wrote the following three files to introduce the RunOptimizations-symbol (adapted from http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/mixing-c-and-cpp.html#faq-32.8): a) Loader.h #ifndef LOADER_H #define LOADER_H #ifdef __cplusplus #include "llvm/PassManager.h" using namespace llvm; #else typedef struct PassManager PassManager; #endif #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { extern void RunOptim...

Hello, I just tried to compile libFLAC (using Borland C++ Builder 6 on Windows). The compilers yells at me on line 233 of libFLAC/lpc.c *(residual++) = *(data++) - (sum >> lp_quantization); --> data is const and cannot be modified Funny thing is, if data is declared: const FLAC__int32 *data instead of const FLAC__int32 data[] everything is ok. Is this a bug in my compiler, or

...; as using standard output (cout), so llvm-as < >> input.ll -o - | opt has the same behavior. You'll actually find a >> comment on it in llvm-as.cpp, so I guess I shouldn't hold out hope > that >> there's a good way to do it. > > Please see: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/input-output.html#faq-15.13 > > We'd welcome patches to do this, and we can localize this in our system > support library, but you'd have to figure out the magic to make this > happen on win32. > > -Chris > > _________________________________________...

...using standard output (cout), so llvm-as < > > input.ll -o - | opt has the same behavior. You'll actually find a > > comment on it in llvm-as.cpp, so I guess I shouldn't hold out hope > that > > there's a good way to do it. > > Please see: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/input-output.html#faq-15.13 > > We'd welcome patches to do this, and we can localize this in our system > support library, but you'd have to figure out the magic to make this > happen on win32. > > -Chris > > ____________________________________...

...sure what the standard says on this. but it's > OK to change it to > > const FLAC__int32 *data > > in order to get it to compile. I haven't checked, and I don't recall whether it covers the case of const arrays, but this article has helped me in the past: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/const-correctness.html -- - mdz

Hi Reid, llvm-as interprets "-" as using standard output (cout), so llvm-as < input.ll -o - | opt has the same behavior. You'll actually find a comment on it in llvm-as.cpp, so I guess I shouldn't hold out hope that there's a good way to do it. Michael -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of

Hi Bram, On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 22:41 +0200, Bram Adams wrote: > Op 16-aug-06, om 18:59 heeft Reid Spencer het volgende geschreven: > Are there any workarounds (using other LLVM-tools) to link a native > library with LLVM-bytecode? Yes. The general approach is to use llvm-as, llvm-dis, opt and llvm-link to work with the bytecode. You can also use gccld and gccas to run some canned

...em_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *that = 0; > try { > that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } catch (...) { > that->~item(); > } > } No I wouldn't since destructors should never throw exceptions: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/exceptions.html#faq-17.9 > Now the point I was making is that all of the locally scoped variables will have their d'tors called automatically by the unwinding mechanism. So something like this: > > void foo() { > try { > Bar b; > mux(b); // ma...

Hi, Op 16-aug-06, om 18:59 heeft Reid Spencer het volgende geschreven: >> llvm-ld: warning: Supposed library 'SOME_OTHER_LIB' isn't a library. > > The -l option is used to link libraries into the resulting executable. > I'm hoping "SOME_OTHER_LIB" is not the actual name and you're just > paraphrasing the actual command line. Note that native

...ct. That function and only that function will be called. > > What happens in that function is up to you :) > > > So, I tried this the last two days, but to no avail. I first wrote the > following three files to introduce the RunOptimizations-symbol > (adapted from http://www.parashift.com/c > ++-faq-lite/mixing-c-and-cpp.html#faq-32.8): > > a) Loader.h > > #ifndef LOADER_H > #define LOADER_H > > #ifdef __cplusplus > #include "llvm/PassManager.h" > using namespace llvm; > #else > typedef struct PassManager PassManager; > #endif...

On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, I'm not following. How is having the code that catches all exceptions in a separate function different from what I proposed (putting the try/catch in the