search for: stagnated

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 71 matches for "stagnated".

2010 Jun 13
2
Please check 1.2rc with your applications!
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
2019 Sep 10
2
[RFC] changing variable naming rules
> 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
2011 Oct 12
3
1.3.30 build error on Mac OS X with non-Apple GCC
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:
2007 May 23
0
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
...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/
2007 May 23
1
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
...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&quo...
2013 Oct 30
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
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
2007 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] API changes (was Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online)
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,
2019 Feb 18
4
[fdo] Lots of wiki content rewritten
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
2016 Dec 13
0
LLD status update and performance chart
...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 sti...
2011 Jan 16
3
Move KDE Plasma Integration to KDE Git Infrastructure
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
2013 Oct 30
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
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,
2016 Dec 13
7
LLD status update and performance chart
...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 sti...
2016 Dec 13
2
LLD status update and performance chart
...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, p...
2016 Dec 13
0
LLD status update and performance chart
...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 sti...
2019 Feb 20
2
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:24, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:16 AM Michael Platings via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Regarding a plan for conversion, I'm keen to avoid perfect
2016 Dec 13
3
LLD status update and performance chart
...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 sma...
2015 Jan 14
2
DJBDNS: very weird dnscache issue
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. > >
2019 Jul 28
3
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase & git-blame
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
2016 Dec 14
1
LLD status update and performance chart
...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, p...
2013 Oct 30
4
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers
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