search for: sparccodegen

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