search for: stagnate

1.2 is on the way, more regression spotting needed! Yes, it makes the numbers worse, but it means Wine will get better ;-) - d. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani at redhat.com> Date: 13 June 2010 10:27 Subject: Re: Release plans To: wine-devel at winehq.org On 06/13/2010 10:39 AM, wylda at volny.cz wrote: > > Hi, another week and Sunday

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 4:24 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:17 PM Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I'm a little bit curious to hear more about the experiences from the changes in LLD. >> I’m thinking about things like: > [..] >> - merging of

There is a linker argument that only Apple's GCC recognizes in the latest build. In libs/wine/Makefile.in, there is a variable that reads: Code: DYLIB_LDFLAGS = -compatibility_version $(SOVERSION) -current_version $(VERSION) -headerpad_max_install_names in order for non-Apple GCC to successfully build, it needs to pass-through the argument to the linker. The line should read: Code:

...es where the > following error now pops up on Linux X86 (not on OSX): > > <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! > llvmc: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! No idea. :) llvmc is a work in progress which has stagnated somewhat. I strongly recommend using llvm-gcc directly. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

...error now pops up on Linux X86 (not on OSX): >> >> <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! >> llvmc: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! > >No idea. :) > >llvmc is a work in progress which has stagnated somewhat. I strongly >recommend using llvm-gcc directly. Bram: About the only way I know of to get that error is if you linked LLVM into a loadable module and loaded it with llvmc. Did you do that? If so, don't link any LLVM stuff into your module! See the Makefile in the "Hello&qu...

On 10/30/13 08:24 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > > May I humbly propose you create a c++11-development branch > now/later/anytime and let people start using that. In parallel to > that let people know that pieces of the c++11 branch will > potentially start merging Feb 1st 2014. (roughly 3 months from > today). This gives people time to review things before they

Hi, Op 19-mei-07, om 00:39 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > Anton is right. You should be able to use -fno-builtins to disable > this. Thanks, that did the trick. Some final remarks (my app works again :-)): * llvm.va_start and similar intrinsics now have an i8* arg instead of an sbyte** * For some reason the Arguments of a Function are now circularly linked,

Hi, To try to bring our wiki 'up to date' (as in, no longer talking about CVS), I've gone through and rewritten a lot of the wiki content for our main landing pages: our front page, the software and specifications pages, the infrastructure pages, and even (to an extent) the mission statement. A lot of this is trying to describe how we've interpreted these things over the past ten

...spent almost two years on the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a linker from smaller modules, please tell me. I st...

Hi Compiz developers, as you might know KDE will transition to git somewhen next week. This gives some new possibilities for the Compiz community, too. Let me first describe the current situation and the problems with it: Compiz and KDE releases are out of sync. We are currently more and more integrating features from the desktop shell into the window manager. In difference to other desktop

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote: > On 10/30/13 03:17 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com<mailto: >> cbergstrom at pathscale.**com <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>>> wrote: >> >> On 10/29/13 07:27 AM,

...spent almost two years on the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a linker from smaller modules, please tell me. I st...

...wo years on the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say > that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes > sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't > make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a > very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the > old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking > based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a > linker from smaller modules,...

...spent almost two years on the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a linker from smaller modules, please tell me. I st...

...nderstand that there is still controversy about whether making a change would improve the project, I just wanted to point out that if we converge on that, then we should consider what LLVM looks like 10 years from now, not just what it looks like 6 months from now. I for one don’t want to see LLVM stagnate, slow, and suffer because of legacy concerns. -Chris

...the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say >> that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes >> sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't >> make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a >> very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the >> old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking >> based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a >> linker from sm...

Lucian, So far here is the best we could find out: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084747 Testing to see if this is the solution; so far it seems to be. Cheers, Boris. On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro> wrote: > Use BIND. How the times have changed. :-) > > PS: I'm also curious for a solution.. for when djbnostalgia hits me. > >

On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:17 AM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 8:30 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> As a very frequent explorer of history, I really don't think this is >> as big an issue as it may seem. Even absent refactorings, you often >> run into the

...wo years on the old LLD and 1.5 years on the new LLD, I can say > that Rafael's stance on focusing on making a good linker first really makes > sense. I can easily imagine that if we didn't focus on that, we couldn't > make this much progress over the past 1.5 year and would be stagnated at a > very basic level. Do you know if I'm a person who worked really hard on the > old (and probably "modular" whatever it means) linker so hard? I'm speaking > based on the experience. If you have an concrete idea how to construct a > linker from smaller modules,...

On 10/30/13 03:17 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, "C. Bergström" > <cbergstrom at pathscale.com <mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com>> wrote: > > On 10/29/13 07:27 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "C. Bergström" > <cbergstrom at pathscale.com