similar to: [LLVMdev] allow gcc .... /full/path/to/libfoo.a

Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] allow gcc .... /full/path/to/libfoo.a"

2005 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] Revised patch to make gccld link native .so's
Here is a revised patch after some suggestions: 1. Removed extraneous changes (the white space changes that are -/+ whitespace), and the commented out code. 2. Keep the warning for linking dynamic libraries in LinkLibraries.cpp I still don't have a good solution to the problem of -L paths that include bytecode versions of the native libraries we're trying to link. Consider the
2004 Dec 30
3
[LLVMdev] Primer with LLVM
Hi, everybody: I am a beginner with LLVM, in fact today was the first day that I use it. I have several questions about LLVM: Can I use LLVM to compile several files (bytecode), scripts (char*) and link them with external libraries generating *only* one executable (all in memory)? Can I invoke externals functions from a guest (LLVM generated) code which exist in the host code (the code that
2004 Dec 30
0
[LLVMdev] Primer with LLVM
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
2004 Dec 31
4
[LLVMdev] Primer with LLVM
Hi again, and thanks (Reid) for your fast response: Yes, it works!!! Only changing the order of libraries in the Makefile. Nowaday I have my software with the capability of compile assembly, bytecode (from buffer and file) and link them with a set of libraries. It seems to work perfectly (I don't generate code yet). My real aim is to have a process (host) with execute several no-jit
2007 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH (rest of code changes) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"
Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached
2015 Jul 29
5
[LLVMdev] The Trouble with Triples
> > The Triple object will remain unchanged. > > The Tuple will be the API to handle getting/setting parameters > depending on the Triple, compiler flags, attributes, etc. > > This part doesn't seem obvious from the direction the patches are going. > There will be no string representation of all options, as that would > be impossible, or at least, highly
2020 Mar 02
4
RTLIB and Custom Library calls
Hello LLVM-Dev, Most of the processing for i64 and f64 types for our backend are emulation library calls. Some of the library calls are not defined in the RuntimeLibcalls.def Libcall enum so we have to define custom library calls. How is the ideal way of implementing the custom library calls? Providing us with a target backend having a similar functionality would also help us significantly. Say
2017 Apr 04
3
RFC: Adding a string table to the bitcode format
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>