search for: thuse

...hitecture string and implement a new target in glibc based on that machine string. So I propose that llvm-gcc not consider itself any type of x86-linux (or what ever it platform it was compiled on), but rather create a new architecture, say llvm (or perhaps 2, one for each bit and little endian). Thuse llvm-gcc -dumpmachine would return llvm-os. This would make system library (and OS kernel!) ports easier to maintain since arch llvm would be supported by adding stuff rather than changing stuff, and all the inline asm for known archs would go away and the C version would be used. In most cases t...

I have button that slides down a menu using Effect.BlindDown, but the function that slides it down also makes it so that the opening link now slides the menu back in. If the user double clicks the link (thuse opening & closing immediatley) the slide animation breaks, then will not extend correctly (but no JS errors). How would you go about stopping this happening? Also, is it just me or is the wiki down more often that not? Tom Rix.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > So I propose that llvm-gcc not consider itself any type of x86-linux (or > what ever it platform it was compiled on), but rather create a new > architecture, say llvm (or perhaps 2, one for each bit and little > endian). Thuse llvm-gcc -dumpmachine would return llvm-os. Hrm, I would much rather just have LLVM be a drop in replacement for a C compiler. As such, it should expose identical #defines to GCC. > This would make system library (and OS kernel!) ports easier to maintain > since arch llvm would be supporte...

...On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > > So I propose that llvm-gcc not consider itself any type of x86-linux (or > > what ever it platform it was compiled on), but rather create a new > > architecture, say llvm (or perhaps 2, one for each bit and little > > endian). Thuse llvm-gcc -dumpmachine would return llvm-os. > > Hrm, I would much rather just have LLVM be a drop in replacement for a C > compiler. As such, it should expose identical #defines to GCC. A drop in replacement for "a C compiler" is rather a different requirement than a drop in r...

Reid Spencer wrote: > In order to get to the next stage with LLVM (like compiling a kernel) we > need to allow "pass through" of inline assembly so things like device > drivers, interrupt vectors, etc. can be written. While this feature > breaks the "pure" LLVM IR, I don't see any way around it. <shameless plug> Actually, there should be a way around it.

In order to get to the next stage with LLVM (like compiling a kernel) we need to allow "pass through" of inline assembly so things like device drivers, interrupt vectors, etc. can be written. While this feature breaks the "pure" LLVM IR, I don't see any way around it. So, I thought I'd bring it up here so we can discuss potential implementations. I think we should