search for: sabres

I thought this conversation was worth saving. DannyB who did wonderful things with GCC's use of bugzilla has offered the same capability to LLVM. Thanks, Danny! <DannyB> sabre: BTW, if you need any of the bugzilla fun i have implemented for gcc, let me know [22:47] <sabre> Cool, what kinds of things do you have? [22:47] <DannyB> Besides the triplet stuff, i changed some of

Hi David, It looks like you added the PWD= magic to Makefile.spec. It is preventing me from running bugpoint on the desktop, with errors like this: /Users/sabre/llvm/projects/llvm-test/External/SPEC/Sandbox.sh bugpoint- train Output/176.gcc.bugpoint-opt /Users/sabre/cvs/benchmarks/ speccpu2000/benchspec/CINT2000/176.gcc/data/train/input/ \

I did make that change to support the following code in ToolRunner.cpp. I found that if I did not explicitly set PWD when invoking bugpoint, then it would not be in the environment. I'm not sure why PWD is not being inherited... perhaps some make weirdness... or bash??? and I don't know how it ever worked before my change. // Full path to the binary. We need to cd to the exec

This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc just yesterday. On 8/9/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. > > Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. >

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:48:17 +0200 Tom Sommer <mail at tomsommer.dk> wrote: > On 2018-10-22 12:56, Mar?a Arrea wrote: > > > We use sabredav for caldav+cardav and roundcube+agendav for nice > > web ui :) > > > Is Sabre still maintained? http://sabre.io/ says 2018 is most recent version -- In modern fantasy (literary or governmental), killing people is the

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. > In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc > just yesterday. Yep, clang reports: t.c:4:12: error: read-only variable is not assignable arr[0] = 1; ~~~~~~ ^ 1 diagnostic generated. so this is specific to llvm-gcc somehow. -Chris > On 8/9/07, Chris

i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). i don't want to re-invent wheels, and the existing many code generator generators. i am evaluating many possbile code generation libraries. at present i give me preferrence to "Prop": http://www.cs.nyu.edu/leunga/www/prop.html and it's portable too. are there any other good library you could recommend?

I commented this line and it is compiling now: extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); I hope that will not cause a different kind of problem. What it is zalloc used for? Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: > >

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 On 4/25/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > i'd like to know if there is any plan or existing work to add a Aho's > > trig language like code generator generator? > > Trig is a code generator generator? Is there any documentation for it > available

Hi, I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. int func() { const int *arr; arr[0] = 1; } $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? 0 $ gcc main.c -c main.c: In function 'func': main.c:4: error: assignment of read-only location The difference disappears when arr[0] is replaced by *arr. (I tried the above with gcc 4.1.2, 3.4.6, 4.0.3. (I don't

How hard would it be to compile this pass and add it to the passes that opt can run? Is this something I should be able to do relatively quickly? What was the name of the file(s) that implemented the pass? Thanks, Ben On 7/3/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > >> We used to have a 'lowerconstantexpr' pass in

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > One minor detail: the last video (Feedback), so have number 15 > instead of 14 (unless that is intentional). Fixed, thanks, -chris >> >> So far, I only have one set of slides on the page - please send me >> your >> slides! :) Also, I'd appreciate it if someone would write a blurb >> describing an overview of

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: >> How can I build the front-end to generate 16-bit integers? > > Please clarify your question. > If you are asking how to build llvm-gcc for a 16 bit target, > I think the answer is: (1) gcc itself doesn't support 16 bit > targets; (2) llvm doesn't currently support any 16 bit targets > (but could with a little work). So

Thanks for the information I am trying to use one of your examples for recursive data structures: ========================= PATypeHolder StructTy = OpaqueType::get(); std::vector<const Type*> Elts; Elts.push_back(PointerType::get(StructTy)); Elts.push_back(PointerType::get(Type::SByteTy)); StructType *NewSTy = StructType::get(Elts); // At this point, NewSTy = "{ opaque*, sbyte*

the proposed architecture (chris) doesn't seem to attack the phase ordering problem. through having independent instruction selection, instruction scheduling, and register allocation phases faciliate a modular design, but i believe the phase-coupled code generator generator high quality code on many architectures. espeically in the embedded system like a media/dsp processors with very limited

Hi all, For anyone interested, I posted two new ideas for changes to the LLVM IR. The first is basically a cleanup, the second is a major new feature: Eliminating the 'Void' Type: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/EliminatingVoid.txt Aggregates as First Class Values: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/FirstClassAggregates.txt Thanks to Dan Gohman for convincing me that aggregates

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). Everything is in CVS. Noone is currently working on automating the pattern matching generator process yet. Before doing that, there are a few changes we want to make to the SelectionDAG interface. In particular, right now, the selection process basically works like this: #1.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. -Chris > int func() > { > const int *arr; > arr[0] = 1; > } > > $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? > 0 > > $ gcc main.c -c > main.c: In function 'func': > main.c:4: error:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 Oh, tWig. :) Yes, tree pattern matching is exactly the direction we are heading. We are slowly making the code generators more and more automatically generated as time goes on. The SelectionDAG infrastructure is mean to support exactly this (perform Tree or DAG pattern matching on the optimized DAG

I think, we must move function arguments lowering from frontend to LLVM core. This lowering is generating machine dependent bytecode. See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1230 Lauro 2007/2/26, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > > The problem is: llvm-gcc generates the same bytecode for both functions: > > > >