similar to: LLVM 1.5 Release and Status Update!

Hello Duraid, Duraid Madina wrote on Wednesday, 11 May 2005: >> I've just tried building CVS/HEAD of llvm using gcc 4.0.0 that I >> have installed to /opt/gcc > ... then you should either add /opt/gcc/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and > rerun ldconfig, or add /opt/gcc/lib to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH . > However, GCC 4.x definitely has issues building LLVM, at least on > ia64. Oh,

Does anybody know if there is some tool to convert from WHIRL to LLVM? maybe some project under development? a similar project? Thanks > > --- Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:45:54 +0900 > > From: Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> > > To: ahs3 at fc.hp.com, LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at

> Itanium Everything checks out as expected. :) Duraid

Oleg Smolsky wrote: > I've just tried building CVS/HEAD of llvm using gcc 4.0.0 that I have > installed to /opt/gcc ... then you should either add /opt/gcc/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and rerun ldconfig, or add /opt/gcc/lib to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH . However, GCC 4.x definitely has issues building LLVM, at least on ia64. If you want to use LLVM in anger, I'd stick with 3.4 for now.

Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: >> - No varargs > > What are your issues here? Or are they simply at the "not implemented > so I don't know" stage? The two bugs I mentioned (no varargs, no alloca) are pretty much two sides of the same coin: I'm ignoring the IA64 stack frame layout (for no good reason), so

Hi Everyone, Sorry for the long overdue status update, as you might guess, the holidays have been busy for everyone. :) Here's your periodic dose of updates on the progress of LLVM, which takes us from the LLVM 1.4 release until present CVS. I appologize if I forgot anything! Big Things: 1. Brian contributed a new SparcV8 backend, which (unlike the SparcV9 backend) uses the

Hi all, This is just to announce that I have a FreeBSD x86 machine running the test suite more or less continuously: http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~builddonkey/ Of note is that it now runs Dejagnu tests. (Thanks, tonic+co!) I'm also tracking CVS breakage (internally, for now). At some later point, I'll make available more real-time information on "is CVS alive and if not,

I have used Perforce also and fully agree it's wonderful. The only concern I have is with their license for open source projects. The only gotcha is that it must be renewed annually, and they reserve the right to not renew it (though they say they won't unreasonably deny renewals). Not sure how much this really matters, as Perforce strikes me as being one of those "do no

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if you can explain this to me. I have a D/41JCT-LS Dialogic board and I want to use it as an IP-PBX. I'm new to IP Telephony and telephony and general and I researched a lot but still confused about what I really need. I know that I can setup an IP-Telephony for my LAN using a SIP server and SIP compatible software phones. But the challenge is how can I

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Be warned, it's pretty > rough right now. Here are some of the known defects: > > - No varargs What are your issues here? Or are they simply at the "not implemented so I don't know" stage? Namely, I am working on some varargs

Dear LLVMers, Does anyone know what the latest is w.r.t a FORTRAN front-end for LLVM? Is anyone expecting to have typical f90/f95 programs compiling to LLVM this year, or next? (I'm aware of the "NAG hack" and various other f2c-type approaches, but they give me a strange feeling in my tummy.) Duraid

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: > I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Woo hoo! And There Was Much Rejoicing in IA64 Land :-). -- Ciao, al ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Stone Alter Ego: Linux & Open Source Lab Debian Developer Hewlett-Packard

Hi everyone, I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Be warned, it's pretty rough right now. Here are some of the known defects: - No varargs - No alloca - No instruction scheduling/bundling of any sort ...or in other words, it breaks often and when it does work, it's a dog. On the plus side, it _does_ have a tasty new pattern instruction selector. :) Beyond fixing the

On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 11:14, Francisco Puentes wrote: > Hi, everybody: > Hi Francisco > > I am a beginner with LLVM, in fact today was the first day that I use it. Welcome! > > I have several questions about LLVM: If you haven't already, a good place to start is the Getting Started Guide, at http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html > Can I use LLVM to

You are right, the machine I am on is a AMD Opteron. I could probably generate working code for x86, but I am testing the implications of using 64 bits integers. The four weeks is not really important, it's just that it would be nice to have really fast code to showcase. Something related to this: to test the effect of 64 bits integers I replace all reference of int by long in my .ll file.

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but if someone were to contribute it to us, we would gratefully host it. Note that if you

> The assert is at TargetLowering.cpp:138. > > Why is FP required? There's no particularly fundamental reason - while LLVM specifies a modest set of FP capabilities... > Most ARMs don't have an FPU. Should I add a fake > register class for MVT::f64? ...nothing will break if you just pretend f64 fits in your integer registers so long as you don't go anywhere near FP in

Hi Duraid, > Does anyone know what the latest is w.r.t a FORTRAN front-end for > LLVM? Is anyone expecting to have typical f90/f95 programs compiling to > LLVM this year, or next? (I'm aware of the "NAG hack" and various other > f2c-type approaches, but they give me a strange feeling in my tummy.) support for Fortran will be much easier once LLVM rebases itself

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Duraid Madina wrote: >>> - No instruction scheduling/bundling of any sort >> >> So this one needs to be coordinated. Next week, I might see about >> adding MachineInstruction support to the SelectionDAG so you can load up >> a DAG post-ISel and then spit it back out scheduled. > > That would be much appreciated, particularly if it

Hi there, The IA64 architecture, which had its 'official' name changed to the "Itanium Processor Architecture", *is* supported by llc. I am pretty sure you are talking about the x86-64 architecture, which has also had its share of unfortunate name changes and is also known as "AMD64", "EM64T" and all sorts of things in between. x86-64 is *not* currently