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