search for: ripzonetriton

I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João has mentioned. Probably something like this patch http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 ? 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being > wrong. > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 > > CC'ing Timur since he might know more about this. > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM, David Nadlinger <code at klick...

On 10 December 2013 09:16, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote: > For the current project I'm working on (https://github.com/mono/CppSharp) > having the flags to change the ABI based on a GCC version would be ideal. If > there are no flags, this means we must implement some logic to change the > calling conventions of met...

...Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João > has mentioned. > > Probably something like this patch > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 > ? > > 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >> I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being >> wrong. >> >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 >> >> CC'ing Timur since he might know more about this. >> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM, D...

...mmunity thinks that is undesirable for the project then we can work around it on our side, but it seems to me these details should be contained in Clang. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 December 2013 09:16, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote: > > For the current project I'm working on (https://github.com/mono/CppSharp > ) > > having the flags to change the ABI based on a GCC version would be > ideal. If > > there are no flags, this means we must implement some logic to change the >...

...le.com> wrote: > > I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João > > has mentioned. > > > > Probably something like this patch > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 > > ? > > > > 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > >> I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being > >> wrong. > >> > >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 > >> > >> CC'ing Timur since he might know more about this. > >> > &gt...

For the current project I'm working on (https://github.com/mono/CppSharp) having the flags to change the ABI based on a GCC version would be ideal. If there are no flags, this means we must implement some logic to change the calling conventions of methods manually to how they were pre-4.7. Should not be a lot of work but it'd be best to contain all the C++ ABI details inside Clang itself.

...er arithmetic and dereferencing already handled correctly? So: int *i = new int[5]; int x = *(i+3); delete[] i; I see the "printAllocaInstruction," is this used? I'll integrate your MSIL and compile, and I guess I'll start making a test suite. -tim On 12/27/12, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote: > I have been working on running C/C++ code into .NET too. > > I resurrected the old LLVM MSIL backend to work with a more recent version > of LLVM and also fixed a few bugs / extended it a bit to support more CIL > constructs. > > You can find the code...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Morten Ofstad <morten at hue.no> wrote: > Actually, adding a LLVM_EXPORT macro would be positive for other > environments, because you can then build LLVM > as a shared library with -fvisibility=hidden and use LLVM_EXPORT to only > make public symbols visible. There are several > advantages to this, as noted here: > I agree, this would be

On 10 December 2013 11:18, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote: > The tool uses Clang to parse the user's C/C++ code to get the calling > conventions from the AST, so they need to match the ones in the compiled > libraries to allow correct interop. If the user libraries were compiled with > GCC 4.6 (which stills seems use...

I wrote some more lit tests for my patch and realized I was generating some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version of the prototype patch with some more tests. 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > Hi Timur, > > There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 I haven't looked at your patch yet, but based on the very low phab review number, I'm pretty sure there are good reasons this wasn't...

I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being wrong. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 CC'ing Timur since he might know more about this. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM, David Nadlinger <code at klickverbot.at>wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> My question: Is there an easy way

...ch and realized I was >> >>>> generating >> >>>> some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version >> >>>> of the prototype patch with some more tests. >> >>>> >> >>>> 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >> >>>>> Hi Timur, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: >> >>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 >> >>>> >> >>&gt...

...at google.com> wrote: >> I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João >> has mentioned. >> >> Probably something like this patch >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 >> ? >> >> 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >>> I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being >>> wrong. >>> >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 >>> >>> CC'ing Timur since he might know more about this. >>> >>> On...

...9:14 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > I wrote some more lit tests for my patch and realized I was generating > some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version > of the prototype patch with some more tests. > > 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >> Hi Timur, >> >> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: >> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 > > I haven't looked at your patch yet, but based on the very low phab > review number, I'm pretty sure there are...

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> My question: Is there an easy way of disabling the name-mangling part >> but keep the rest of the CC that I missed? > if you use "\1" + "usual name", it will disable name mangling if you are > lucky. A leading \1 is LLVM's way of saying: leave this name alone! Seems like

...; >> >>>> generating > >> >>>> some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version > >> >>>> of the prototype patch with some more tests. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > >> >>>>> Hi Timur, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: > >> >>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 > >> >>>...

...gt;>> generating >> >> >>>> some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version >> >> >>>> of the prototype patch with some more tests. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >> >> >>>>> Hi Timur, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: >> >> >>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 >> &...

...wrote: >>>> I wrote some more lit tests for my patch and realized I was generating >>>> some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version >>>> of the prototype patch with some more tests. >>>> >>>> 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: >>>>> Hi Timur, >>>>> >>>>> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: >>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 >>>> >>>> I haven't looked at your patch yet, but base...

Hi Timur, There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 Does your patch provide just a subset of the CodeView debug info provided in the other patch? Looking at the patch, I think the approach the other patch took of abstracting the emission of debug information is a bit cleaner and it will probably make life easier when adding more

...gt; I wrote some more lit tests for my patch and realized I was generating > >>>> some redundant info. This is fixed now. Attached is a new version > >>>> of the prototype patch with some more tests. > >>>> > >>>> 2013/11/15 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > >>>>> Hi Timur, > >>>>> > >>>>> There's also a pending patch adding CodeView support in Phab: > >>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D165 > >>>> > >>>> I haven't look...