search for: wiedermann

hi! i was working on an llvm-gcc4_2 version, which i used as a starting-point for a fixed-point c-datatype implementation. i read that the svn repos is up now, and so i remembered the following lines: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Peter Wiedermann wrote: > > i fixed some major bugs in the llvm-gcc4_2 patch since my last post. > > this brings me to an interesting question: > > > > what are your criteria to use my patch for further development? > > I have no fixed criteria. I think the best solution is for the w...

> > i was working on an llvm-gcc4_2 version, which i used as a starting-point for > > a fixed-point c-datatype implementation. > > i read that the svn repos is up now, and so i remembered the following lines: > > > >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Peter Wiedermann wrote: > >>> i fixed some major bugs in the llvm-gcc4_2 patch since my last post. > >>> this brings me to an interesting question: > >>> > >>> what are your criteria to use my patch for further development? > >> > >> I have no fixed...

hello > > in the first step, we either have to backport the changes in the gcc > > frontend or port llvm-gcc to a more recent version (with the 4.2 > > release on its way, this might be a good candidate). it appears, > > resources are better spent for latter. are there major concerns > > speaking against this approach? does anybody have a rough estimate of > >

hi! i fixed some major bugs in the llvm-gcc4_2 patch since my last post. this brings me to an interesting question: what are your criteria to use my patch for further development? at the moment i use the llvm-test1.9 suite for testing, because the actual llvm-test trunk in the repository seems to be broken. in my configuration the official llvm-gcc4 does not run completely error free against

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Peter Wiedermann wrote: > ok, thats fine to me. > i think the worst part of the work is done. wow, you look quite far along. >> Hrm, that's strange. llvm-test doesn't pass 100% (e.g. some of the EH >> stuff is now working yet), but it should ahve basic functionality. What >> is b...

> > > On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Peter Wiedermann wrote: > > > yes. > > for a detailed llvm-gcc4 to llvm-gcc4.2 failure comparison see: > > > > http://geldspeicher.entenhausen.at/dl/llvm-gcc4_2_stat.ps.gz > > or > > http://geldspeicher.entenhausen.at/dl/llvm-gcc4_2_stat.pdf > > You have lots of failur...

hi > > i fixed some major bugs in the llvm-gcc4_2 patch since my last post. > > this brings me to an interesting question: > > > > what are your criteria to use my patch for further development? > > I have no fixed criteria. I think the best solution is for the work to be > checked into the (forthcoming) public SVN server. When it is available, > you can

hi! because i read that other people may be interested in llvm-gcc4_2 in the google-soc thread, here is the status of my work: i merged llvm-gcc and the current gcc4_2. this is the patch from official gcc4_2 to my llvm-gcc4_2: http://geldspeicher.entenhausen.at/dl/gcc-4_2_to_llvm.patch.gz comments: + i left out most APPLE LOCAL* marked regions of llvm-gcc4 which were not concerning llvm

> > Okay it support C++, what about Exception handing ? > > Aaron > > well eh is disabled in llvm-gcc4, so it is in llvm-gcc4.2 kind regards peter