search for: world3

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "world3".

Did you mean: world
2012 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] unable to interface with target machine
On 15/11/12 10:10, Duncan Sands wrote: > On 15/11/12 10:15, Philip Ashmore wrote: >> On 15/11/12 08:58, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> Is there a way to get the target triple of the machine the code is >>>> running on, >>>> or barring that, the machine llvm was built on? >>> >>> clang -v >>> >>> Ciao, Duncan. >>>
2012 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] unable to interface with target machine
On 15/11/12 10:15, Philip Ashmore wrote: > On 15/11/12 08:58, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Is there a way to get the target triple of the machine the code is running on, >>> or barring that, the machine llvm was built on? >> >> clang -v >> >> Ciao, Duncan. >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>
2012 Oct 14
1
[LLVMdev] [Proposal] Annotated assembly output
...ts("Hello, world!") , return(0) ) ) ) ) The current version which you can download can walk the sbd created from this data and output "C" code for compilation. Version 0.2.0-05 (which I'll release in a week or two) has a "hello-world3-test" program that uses an LLVM Module to dump IR that's assembled into a hello world program and run, looking for that "Hello, world!" output for the test to pass. The 0.2.0-05 "hello-world4-test" program interprets the sbd. The C++ program "calls" the &q...
2012 Oct 13
0
[LLVMdev] [Proposal] Annotated assembly output
Another question: What kind of documentation you are planning to produce for this feature? -- Sean Silva On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 12, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Jim, thanks for the response. That pretty much clears up my primary >> concern. +1 for keeping the C
2012 Oct 12
3
[LLVMdev] [Proposal] Annotated assembly output
On Oct 12, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > Hi Jim, thanks for the response. That pretty much clears up my primary > concern. +1 for keeping the C API small/stable/robust :) > > Having multiple hand-implemented parsers accepting the output, I think > it would be wise to have an official "conformance suite" for the > syntax so that