Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "sparccodegen".
2010 Jul 26
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM Dependency Graph
...n -> System
AlphaCodeGen -> Target
SparcInfo -> Support
SparcAsmPrinter -> AsmPrinter
SparcAsmPrinter -> CodeGen
SparcAsmPrinter -> Core
SparcAsmPrinter -> MC
SparcAsmPrinter -> SparcInfo
SparcAsmPrinter -> Support
SparcAsmPrinter -> System
SparcAsmPrinter -> Target
SparcCodeGen -> CodeGen
SparcCodeGen -> Core
SparcCodeGen -> MC
SparcCodeGen -> SelectionDAG
SparcCodeGen -> SparcInfo
SparcCodeGen -> Support
SparcCodeGen -> System
SparcCodeGen -> Target
BlackfinInfo -> Support
BlackfinAsmPrinter -> AsmPrinter
BlackfinAsmPrinter -> BlackfinInf...
2008 Sep 02
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM build failures
.../llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/LinkAllCodegenComponents.h:37: undefined reference to `llvm::createSimpleRegisterCoalescer()'
(lots more of these)
(3) similar problem on sparc64, gcc 4.3.1:
...
make[2]: Leaving directory `.../llvm/build/llvm/tools/llvm-link'
llvm-config: unknown component name: sparccodegen
make[2]: Entering directory `.../llvm/build/llvm/tools/lli'
llvm[2]: Compiling lli.cpp for Debug build
llvm-config: unknown component name: sparccodegen
llvm[2]: Linking Debug executable lli
.../llvm/build/llvm/tools/lli/Debug/lli.o: In function `ForceCodegenLinking':
.../llvm/build/llvm/in...
2013 Apr 09
0
[LLVMdev] Please document the layers
On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "Robinson, Paul" <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists.
> While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing,
> there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers.
> Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and
2013 Apr 08
2
[LLVMdev] Please document the layers
I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists.
While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing,
there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers.
Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and error-prone
(or we wouldn't see so many violations in code reviews, eh?).
Now, I understand that Google has some sort