Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "targetsupport".
2011 Jan 17
3
[LLVMdev] clang/LLVM cross testing environment
...r mode support.
* The SVN checkout is huge, since it has everything mentioned above in it.
* This is a work in progress: There are things that don't work. Not for
the faint of heart!
* It is fairly easy to build the complete package, see
http://ellcc.org/installation.html and http://ellcc.org/targetsupport.html
* Not all of the NetBSD standard library has been ported. There are a
lot of system calls, etc. that have not been tested. I've been adding
things as needed, not in any systematic way.
* It is currently based on a fairly recent version of LLVM/clang: r122956.
* Processor support is curre...
2014 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Embedding command line options in bitcode (PR21471)
...versions of
> TargetOptions and populating that on creation from the front end. We'd want
> to be careful with the target specific bits and constructing defaults,
> probably something off of the bits in Targets.cpp would be appropriate. A
> lot of this type of code leads us down the TargetSupport library or
> something of the sort - classes to help describe or create backend
> constructs.
>
> Anyhow, this is my current thinking on how to do API building of
> TargetMachine etc. (Alternately a TargetMachineBuilder? But that sounds
> complicated in all of the same ways withou...
2012 Nov 24
20
Shorewall 4.5.10 Beta 2
Beta 2 is now available for testing.
Problems Corrected since Beta 1:
1) References to the obsolete USE_ACTIONS option have been removed
from the manpages.
2) NFLOG has been documented for some time as a valid ACTION in the
rules files but support for that action was never implemented
until this release.
3) The Checksum Target capability detection in the rules compiler was
2012 Nov 24
20
Shorewall 4.5.10 Beta 2
Beta 2 is now available for testing.
Problems Corrected since Beta 1:
1) References to the obsolete USE_ACTIONS option have been removed
from the manpages.
2) NFLOG has been documented for some time as a valid ACTION in the
rules files but support for that action was never implemented
until this release.
3) The Checksum Target capability detection in the rules compiler was
2014 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Embedding command line options in bitcode (PR21471)
...ptions and populating that on creation from the front end. We'd want
>>> to be careful with the target specific bits and constructing defaults,
>>> probably something off of the bits in Targets.cpp would be appropriate. A
>>> lot of this type of code leads us down the TargetSupport library or
>>> something of the sort - classes to help describe or create backend
>>> constructs.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, this is my current thinking on how to do API building of
>>> TargetMachine etc. (Alternately a TargetMachineBuilder? But that sounds
>>...
2014 Dec 09
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Embedding command line options in bitcode (PR21471)
...at on creation from the front end. We'd want
>>>>> to be careful with the target specific bits and constructing defaults,
>>>>> probably something off of the bits in Targets.cpp would be appropriate. A
>>>>> lot of this type of code leads us down the TargetSupport library or
>>>>> something of the sort - classes to help describe or create backend
>>>>> constructs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyhow, this is my current thinking on how to do API building of
>>>>> TargetMachine etc. (Alternately a Targe...
2014 Dec 02
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Embedding command line options in bitcode (PR21471)
Thanks for your feedback, Eric.
I still think we may be talking past each other a little bit, but rather than delving further into the details right now, I’ve suggested to Akira that he look into how we should handle other kinds of options. I’m hoping that as we look at more of them, we will gain some insight into the approach that we want to take here. This patch really only deals with the easy