similar to: [LLVMdev] new web page

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/~gaeke/llvm-tv It looks like Brian removed his directory. Brian, do you still have a copy of that page that we can point people to? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Brian R. Gaeke wrote: > Sorry, I don't personally have any of that stuff anymore -- I seem > to recall that page didn't have a whole lot on it, though. I think > Misha has messed around with llvm-tv more recently than I have. If > you really want that particular page, it looks like you can get (a > version of) it from the Internet Archive... > >

Sorry, I don't personally have any of that stuff anymore -- I seem to recall that page didn't have a whole lot on it, though. I think Misha has messed around with llvm-tv more recently than I have. If you really want that particular page, it looks like you can get (a version of) it from the Internet Archive... http://web.archive.org/web/20041102220954/llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/~gaeke/llvm-tv/

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. > In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc > just yesterday. Yep, clang reports: t.c:4:12: error: read-only variable is not assignable arr[0] = 1; ~~~~~~ ^ 1 diagnostic generated. so this is specific to llvm-gcc somehow. -Chris > On 8/9/07, Chris

This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc just yesterday. On 8/9/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. > > Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. >

Hi, Have you tried the new VC8 Beta? It's been out for less than 2 weeks: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx It's supposed to have improved standards compliance. Regards, -Eugene Talagrand On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:56:03 -0500 (CDT) > From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > Reply-To: llvmdev at

I was able to build and play with clang today. Clang also promotes integer arithmetic to 32-bit. Any pointers on how to tweak it so that it generate i16 for "int" and also promote int operations to 16-bit operations only? Thanks, Sanjiv On 3/20/08, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> How can I build the

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Sorry, but it is not even close to working (its template and STL support > > is horribly lacking). The Visual Studio "Whidbey" compiler, now in beta, > > will handle it though with only a reasonable amount of tweaking to the > > LLVM sources. I have no idea about when Microsoft intends to release it > > though,

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. -Chris > int func() > { > const int *arr; > arr[0] = 1; > } > > $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? > 0 > > $ gcc main.c -c > main.c: In function 'func': > main.c:4: error:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: >> How can I build the front-end to generate 16-bit integers? > > Please clarify your question. > If you are asking how to build llvm-gcc for a 16 bit target, > I think the answer is: (1) gcc itself doesn't support 16 bit > targets; (2) llvm doesn't currently support any 16 bit targets > (but could with a little work). So

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > -- It would be helpful to add some navigation links at the top and bottom of > the pages. I added a TOC to each chapter, thanks. > -- Not clear why PrototypeAST::Codegen returns a Function* instead of a > Value* like the other CodeGen methods? I clarified this in the text. The short version is that PrototypeAST doesn't correspond

Hi, I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. int func() { const int *arr; arr[0] = 1; } $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? 0 $ gcc main.c -c main.c: In function 'func': main.c:4: error: assignment of read-only location The difference disappears when arr[0] is replaced by *arr. (I tried the above with gcc 4.1.2, 3.4.6, 4.0.3. (I don't

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> Anyone have thoughts or feedback? :) > > Nice job. The only bit that is not immediately clear is the 'Proto' > variable, but is clear when looking through the code at the end of the page. Where in the tutorial? What would you suggest that I say? > Could do with a link to the LLVMBuilder class reference material. I added a link

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > I've noticed in the last day that I'm not getting any Bugzilla email any > more. I haven't changed my settings in Bugzilla. Did something change > at UIUC? I don't think so... I'm still getting plenty of bugzilla mail. :) -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/

I just wanted to mention that there is a new global makefile target "make cleandeps", which recursively walks through the source tree, deleting .d files, without removing anything else. This is useful when you update from CVS, and find out that there has been a header file removed. Before you'd have to go in and remove the outdated .d manually, now you can just run 'make

I commented this line and it is compiling now: extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); I hope that will not cause a different kind of problem. What it is zalloc used for? Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: > >

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > On top of this execution environment we have implemented a java virtual > machine and a .net virtual machine. They > are both functional and we achieve reasonable performance (1/3 of IBM's > JVM or Mono). Cool. > This algorithm does not work with llvm because creating labels (which > correspond to creating basic blocks) does not

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ben Chambers wrote: > How hard would it be to compile this pass and add it to the passes > that opt can run? Is this something I should be able to do relatively > quickly? What was the name of the file(s) that implemented the pass? It should be easy, modulo it bitrotting. It is already built as an opt pass. The filename was LowerConstantExpr.cpp IIRC. -Chris

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, John Criswell wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, John Criswell wrote: >>> The LLVM web server is up and running, but we're still working on some >>> subversion configuration issues. The server may go up and down >>> intermittently as we try configuration changes over the next half hour. >>> >> >>

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > Yes, the JIT implementation was recently improved to add support for > this. There's nothing you need to do (or emit). The JIT implementation > will automatically collect memory that is not being used. See the > JITMemoryManager in lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp for details. The JIT doesn't automatically do this. I don't