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