Displaying 16 results from an estimated 16 matches for "systemlibrari".
Did you mean:
systemlibrary
2013 May 28
2
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
> Ah, ok. In that case, I think that it would be best to make a new page for
> libSupport, and have it defer to SystemLibrary.rst for discussion of the
> "libSystem" parts of libSupport. The major necessary changes for
> SystemLibrary.rst would then be to mention its inclusion in libSupport
> (important) and fix file paths (mechanical, less important).
Sorry, but at least
2013 May 28
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, ok. In that case, I think that it would be best to make a new page
> for
> > libSupport, and have it defer to SystemLibrary.rst for discussion of the
> > "libSystem" parts of libSupport. The major necessary changes for
> > SystemLibrary.rst would then be to
2013 May 28
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> > AFAIK, libSupport does more than what this document describes (for
> example,
> > it contains ADT, which are portable and not system-specific, contrary to
> the
> > second paragraph of the document). Does it make sense to just globally
> > replace "Support"
2013 May 27
3
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
> AFAIK, libSupport does more than what this document describes (for example,
> it contains ADT, which are portable and not system-specific, contrary to the
> second paragraph of the document). Does it make sense to just globally
> replace "Support" for "System"? I wasn't around when the transition was
> made, so I don't know. Please get a confirmation
2013 May 28
2
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
>> Ideally we would have a
>> docs/SystemLibrary.rst that would just says "this library has been
>> merged to lib/Support" and docs/SupportLibrary.rst documents whatever
>> is in lib/Support.
>
>
> Considering our OS portability layer to be it's own separate thing, even if
> it isn't its own lib/* directory is probably a good distinction to
2013 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
I hit upon docs/SystemLibrary.rst today.
Is this documentation useful to anyone? Can I delete it?
Most of the guidelines seem like common sense: Keeping LLVM Portable, High
Level Interface, No Unused Functionality, No Duplicate Implementations, etc.
Some are not really true, like "Minimize Soft Errors". We currently
propagate a lot of file-related soft errors up as
2013 May 26
2
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
On 25 May 2013 15:30, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:
> This will break existing URLs. Until we have a way to set up redirects the
> file name should stay the same.
Would a SystemLibrary.rst saying it was replaced with the support library be ok?
> -- Sean Silva
Cheers,
Rafael
2013 May 26
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
>From 1d658dd52ca3973109e370103a7dd3485a4ee11f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yonggang Luo <luoyonggang at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:07:16 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] The System library is merged into Support library.
---
docs/SystemLibrary.rst | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
docs/index.rst | 4 +-
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54
2013 May 27
3
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
ping,is there any other problems in this patch?
在 2013-5-27 上午12:09,"罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo)" <luoyonggang at gmail.com>写道:
> From 1d658dd52ca3973109e370103a7dd3485a4ee11f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yonggang Luo <luoyonggang at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:07:16 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] The System library is merged into Support library.
>
> ---
2013 May 25
4
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
0b5c0c9c868213fee1a8e3b571a96e2e099e8e1e
docs/SupportLibrary.rst | 247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
docs/SystemLibrary.rst | 247 ------------------------------------------------
docs/index.rst | 6 +-
3 files changed, 250 insertions(+), 250 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/SupportLibrary.rst b/docs/SupportLibrary.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..36ab49a
---
2009 Jul 17
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH 2/2] Make Program::ExecuteNoWait return a process ID.
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes:
>
> Ultimately I think a better API would be to provide a generic class
> which represents an executed operating system process, and includes
> operations to wait for its completion, redirect its IO, communicate
> with it, etc. This would be a big improvement over the current
> monolithic function.
I agree,
2009 Jul 17
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH 2/2] Make Program::ExecuteNoWait return a process ID.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov<foldr at codedgers.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Ultimately I think a better API would be to provide a generic class
>> which represents an executed operating system process, and includes
>> operations to wait for its completion, redirect
2013 May 26
1
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
OK, I'll resubmit it.
2013/5/26 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>:
> This patch has changed "System V IPC" to "Support V IPC". This seems to be an accident caused by some sort of automation.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 7:27 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
2013 May 26
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
This patch has changed "System V IPC" to "Support V IPC". This seems to be an accident caused by some sort of automation.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2013, at 7:27 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote:
> 0b5c0c9c868213fee1a8e3b571a96e2e099e8e1e
> docs/SupportLibrary.rst | 247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
2013 May 25
0
[LLVMdev] The system library is gone for a long time.
This will break existing URLs. Until we have a way to set up redirects the
file name should stay the same.
-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130525/3f6449ed/attachment.html>
2008 Feb 14
1
[LLVMdev] Bug Report - Broken versions of FC6-GCC.4.1.1 when complie llvm-2.2 source