search for: volenteered

Displaying 12 results from an estimated 12 matches for "volenteered".

Did you mean: volenteer
2004 Jun 25
0
[LLVMdev] Using -noexternals option of NightlyTest.pl
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > Result night tester run at FreeBSD 5.1 accessable by URL > http://npt.cc.rsu.ru/testresults-X86-FreeBSD/index.html > I can't guaranty run it per day base, sorry. Okay, sounds great. I added it to the page with a note to that effect: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/ Thanks a lot for volenteering to run it. Also, if you notice
2004 Jun 25
2
[LLVMdev] Using -noexternals option of NightlyTest.pl
Result night tester run at FreeBSD 5.1 accessable by URL http://npt.cc.rsu.ru/testresults-X86-FreeBSD/index.html I can't guaranty run it per day base, sorry. As i can see, make (bug 385) and perl (bug 386) not builded by NightlyTest.pl (but builded if use gmake night tests run format) So I don't known preferable solutions: its can be closed or patches applied. Vladimir
2007 Apr 10
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM Roadmap 2007-2008, PowerPC, multithreading, LLVM 2.0, etc ?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Valery Khamenya wrote: > where could one find any LLVM development roadmap for this > and perhaps next year? We generally have not published a road map like this because it is very difficult to do it in a meaningful way. Because LLVM is largely driven by volenteers and because noone working on it guarantees that they will finish a project that they start, we
2007 Jun 12
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM binaries for Windows and more
...> > I fixed this by adding a ``return 0;`` at the end of the method. But why > > don't you just provide binaries for windows? I could send you the > > binaries that I built - I have not yet tested them though. > > The LLVM community consists of volenteers, and noone volenteered for 2.0 > :) > > -Chris I volunteer. As soon as I get everything to work. Next problem: I now have the hello.bc file compiled. But how do I get an executable from this? I tried: C:\Eigenes\compiler\llvm-2.0\win32\release>llvm-ld -o=hellow.exe hellow.bc llvm-ld: Could not find llv...
2007 Jun 12
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM binaries for Windows and more
Hi! I want to use LLVM for my own "pet" programming language compiler as a backend. Currently it generates C code, but I am not satisfied with this approach as generating high-level C (with proper type declarations!) is horrible. So here are my questions/problems with LLVM: 1.) Are there operations that add, sub, mul integers with overflow checking? How much work would it be to add
2007 Apr 10
6
[LLVMdev] LLVM Roadmap 2007-2008, PowerPC, multithreading, LLVM 2.0, etc ?
Hi, where could one find any LLVM development roadmap for this and perhaps next year? Especially would be interesting to know about * planned features for PS3 Cell processor -- as well as for Wii, Xbox360 CPUs * multithreading in general * possibly coming changes in major versioning and related issues * other interesting featuring comments on current status to above listed items are also
2007 Apr 11
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM Roadmap 2007-2008, PowerPC, multithreading, LLVM 2.0, etc ?
Hi Chris, Chris Lattner <sabre <at> nondot.org> writes: > We generally have not published a road map like this because it is very > difficult to do it in a meaningful way. Because LLVM is largely driven by > volenteers and because noone working on it guarantees that they will > finish a project that they start, we can't make 'promises' about new >
2005 Nov 01
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM Release Branch
Dear All, Do people think that they are ready to create the LLVM 1.6 release branch? I believe all the development is pretty much done. Is all the documentation in the LLVM source tree updated and ready? I'm not able to make a full doc review like I've been able to do in previous releases, so I need volunteers to work on the docs if they're not done yet. -- John T. -- John
2006 Nov 28
2
[LLVMdev] moving to svn?
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Bill Wendling wrote: > Perhaps someone could come up with a list of different versioning > software, list the pros and cons, and then we could vote? (Has anyone > mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-) There are a couple reasons we are using CVS still: 1. CVS works and is well understood by all involved. 2. The main deficiencies of CVS don't impact us much (we aren't
2006 Nov 28
0
[LLVMdev] moving to svn?
Perhaps someone could come up with a list of different versioning software, list the pros and cons, and then we could vote? (Has anyone mentioned Bitkeeper yet? :-) -bw On 11/28/06, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure if I just took HEAD or converted the whole llvm repo. > > Personally, I like darcs for the atomic theory of patches.
2006 Nov 28
5
[LLVMdev] moving to svn?
> I'm not sure if I just took HEAD or converted the whole llvm repo. > Personally, I like darcs for the atomic theory of patches. YMMV. I have used darcs to work with psi. It looks like a very clean design, but currently it is a very anemic implementation IMHO. I constantly find myself trying to find out how to do a relatively simple task. Git is fast and has a lot of features, but
2008 May 13
4
[LLVMdev] Size and performance figures for LLVM?
Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 10:48 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On May 12, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > > > > Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 09:08 -0700 schrieb Devang Patel: > >> On May 12, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > >> > >>> 2) What is the relative performance of code generated by LLVM > >>> and gcc