search for: pr518

...t went into CVS recently, so you should check it out and see if it works for you. If you *are* using CVS, are you saying you used `configure -enable-target=[blah]' and it compiled and linked them all? In that case, it's a bug, so please post your results over here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/PR518 > ... and it always statically links each binary. Yes, that is currently the default method of building libraries and tools. If you were to make all the libraries shared, you would be doing the same linking/relocating at run-time every time you start the tool. There is support for loading ta...

...nd read from there. You want to take the union of these sets, and that would do it. > Yes, I just tried with cvs and It still compiles all back-ends. I'll > try it again to make sure, and then report the bug. Instead of opening a new bug, please reopen this one: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/PR518 > It's not the linking/relocating that's the problem. The problem is > that each binary winds up being rather large. However, since these > tools don't need to be distributed or compiled for my purposes, I > guess i'm not really worried about it. Compiling optimized b...

Hi List, I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable Scheme system (PLT Scheme). The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would have had to write (poorly) from scratch. At the moment, LLVM seems to be the ideal choice for implementing the Scheme JIT, but there are problems that need

On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > Maybe we can use you for a testimonial... :) Certainly. > > Tail Call Elimination: > > > > I've read over the "Random llvm notes", and see that you guys have > > though about this already. > > > > However, the note dates from last year, so I am wondering if there is > > an implementation in the works.