search for: pitrou

2016-01-20 1:11 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:47:56 +0200 > "Eddy B. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I would love to know your thoughts on this, and more specifically: > > Which of the 3 (byval(T), byval...

Hello, Am I right in thinking that MCJIT doesn't support thread-local variables (at least not on Linux x86-64)? Is there any plan or pending PR to support it (either in MCJIT or in ORC)? Thank you, Regards Antoine.

...ges (with the exception of libclang for C++). Antoine: Am aware of Numba, nice job there BTW. So is there a [decoupled] LLVM parser which I can use to read Python files and analyse objects (including computing their attributes in OO and setattr scenarios)? On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6 <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > Would be good to have Python, Rust and Go.Are there any LLVM parsers > > around for these popular languages? > > A programming language is much...

...vm.org/D8815, but we've since switched to a home grown TLS implementation, so I currently don't have a need for this. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Alex Denisov via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > /cc Lang Hames > > > On 17 Aug 2016, at 19:27, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > Am I right in thinking that MCJIT doesn't support thread-local > > variables (at least not on Linux x86-64)? > > > > Is there any plan or pending PR to support...

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math...

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:40:44 +0100 David Chisnall via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The end result is that shortly after a release (sometimes every alternate release) is branched a load of downstream projects update to the new APIs, test things, and find a bunch of regressions that have been sitting in the tree for months. We then have to scrabble to bisect and try

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:46:35 -0700 Michael Kuperstein via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > To the best of my understanding - because we want to be able to bootstrap > clang with the system compiler that ships with various linux and BSD > distributions. > Windows has no equivalent concept. To elaborate on this: if you want to produce binaries compatible with old

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan <at> ochtman.nl> writes: > > > > As far as I understand, this change is wanted because the LLVM > > infrastructure derives no value from knowing the types, and there's a > &gt...

Hello, I haven't found any relevant info in the docs about this. I'm trying to build LLVM 3.7.1 on OS X but it fails in the configuration phase. Here are the relevant parts of the output: $ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/Volumes/HD2/jenkins/workspace/LLVMDev/label/osxbuild/miniconda/envs/_build -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=host -DLLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS=OFF

Hello, I am a bit curious about the rationale for the current callback-based object cache API. For Numba, it would be easier if there would be a simple procedural API: - one method to get a module's compiled object code - one method to load/instantiate a module from a given piece of object code I manage to get around the callback-based API to do what I want, but it's a bit weird to work

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I want an efficient way to implement function pow...

Hi, On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:32:18 -0700 Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think David and I are probably the most familiar with how WinEH works in > LLVM, but I don't think either of us has time to prepare a talk for the dev > meeting. I'm trying to prepare a talk on supporting the MS debug info > format in LLVM this year. That said,

Hello, LTO is currently the only library which is always built as shared, even under Windows. This actually seems to lead to failure using LLVM in another project under Windows, at least for me (the error message complains about "LTO-NOTFOUND.OBJ"). Switching it to a static library fixes the issue (again, at least for me under Windows). The change was made in:

...t; >> Antoine: Am aware of Numba, nice job there BTW. So is there a [decoupled] >> LLVM parser which I can use to read Python files and analyse objects >> (including computing their attributes in OO and setattr scenarios)? >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6 <at> gmail.com >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gmail.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTD...

Hello, With LLVM 3.7.1 on target triple 'x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu', I'm trying to use the "@llvm.canonicalize.f64" intrinsic and I get the following error: LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: intrinsic %llvm.canonicalize Is this a known issue? I tried the equivalent formulations listed in the language reference (such as addition with -0.0 or multiplication with 1.0) but those are

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:29:14 +0000 Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm not familiar with the release process, but couldn't most of the > concerns raised in this thread be addressed by shipping prebuilt binaries > for these big platforms with older toolchains? That wouldn't address the cases where people use different build options (e.g.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:43:16 -0500 Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I agree that if an API user violates the API of a library, it is > appropriate for the library to abort with a fatal error. <unlurking> Is it? If you pass an invalid fd to the libc, it replies with a EBADF, it doesn't crash hard. Most mature libraries have guards

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 09:04:15AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:09:08PM +0000, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: > > The BSDs don't seem as much of an issue. FreeBSD 10 and 11 both have LLVM > > 3.9 and GCC 4.9. NetBSD 6.1.5 and 7.0 both have GCC 5.3 and LLVM 3.8. > > Open BSD has a very old GCC, but distrowatch claims that

...;> >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>>>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote...

Hal Finkel <hfinkel <at> anl.gov> writes: > > Do you require long-term cross-release ABI and/or API stability > from the C API that you're using? Do these > other projects? For the record, in llvmlite and Numba we don't require C API stability for two reasons: 1) the C API is not enough for us and we rely on bits of the C++ API 2) we also rely on other details