similar to: [LLVMdev] Planned service outtages

Dear LLVMers, If you live on the bleeding edge (i.e. CVS version), please read! On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Do you really want external patches for this ? A simple Perl script > that runs on all *.h and *.cpp files, and a local commit from your > side would be much simpler. I'm in the process of doing just this as we speak. What this

Howdy, oh LLVMers! As you may or may not have noticed, the LLVM tool `as' has a problematic name that conflicts with the standard system assembler. This poses a problem for programs such as `gcc' which searches the path for a suitable assembler -- it may find the LLVM assembler instead of the native version, causing compilation errors. Thus, I am undertaking the project of renaming LLVM

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has > > announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, > > you'd be more than welcome to do so. > > My C++ knowledge is completely non-existant, but so far I've had a >

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:59:09PM -0500, John Criswell wrote: > Misha: > Release Notes > Writing an LLVM Backend I think the others have done a great job with the first one, and they are much more qualified to do it than I am. I sprinkled the second one with some fresh links to other docs. -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

LLVM list, I bumped into Alex Friedman in the hall today and by coincidence he mentioned that they were switching to LLVM for their PLT Scheme JIT project. I had evaluated LLVM a few weeks ago for my own purposes, but decided that it was too C/C++ centered and that critical features such as tail call optimization and other stack manipulation features were likely stagnant. So naturally I asked

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has >>> announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, >>> you'd be more than welcome to do so. >> >> My C++ knowledge

Ms Brukman, Thanks for your reply.Just clarifying my question.I actually wanted to randomize the static layout of function code in the executable file.Sorry for writing in confusing manner. T Misha Brukman <brukman at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Tanu Sharma wrote: > By randomization of functions I mean the manner in whch they are > called , so

Hi Misha, Files downloaded. Thank you very much. Henrik. From: Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:17:25 -0600 On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:35:47AM +0100, Henrik Bach wrote: > Would some one be so kind to catch the output when configuring and building > the CFE together with the log files produced? http://misha.brukman.net/code/llvm/logs/ The

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:36:08 -0500 Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section > > "Getting Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading

It works. Thanks! However, although the configuration and installation process doesn't report any error/warning, the llvmc cannot work. It just says: Unexpected unknown exception occurred :( Do you have any clue about that? Feng -----Original Message----- From: Misha Brukman [mailto:brukman at uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:00 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Cc:

Sigh... take it up with Microsoft. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:06:36 -0500 Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > Here's the patch to Signals.cpp. assuming that stdio.h is acceptable > > (can't imagine it won't work). > > We prefer #include <cstdio>, since this is C++ after all. :) >

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:46:18PM -0400, Shukang Zhou wrote: > Thanks Misha. I tried the "gcc -dM -E /tmp/file.c | grep __sparcv9" > but there was no output. Maybe this is the probelm, I do have > > CXX = g++ -mcpu=v9 > CC := gcc -mcpu=v9 > > in the Makefile.config. Do I need to add -m64 as well? Thanks. Just run the test that I mentioned before: > On Thu, 7

Why not put all this into a pre-commit filter in CVS and be done with it? We'd never be bothered with it again as it would never be committed again. Reid. On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 15:11 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote: > Dear LLVMers, > > If you live on the bleeding edge (i.e. CVS version), please read! > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:

Hi Misha, Thanks for your answer I was doing this: ======================== BasicBlock *BBlock = new BasicBlock("entry", MyFunc); ... Value *Zero = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 0); Value *UZero = ConstantUInt::get(Type::UIntTy, 0); MallocInst* mi = new MallocInst( STyStru ); mi->setName("tmp.0"); BBlock->getInstList().push_back( mi );

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section "Getting > Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading of the remainder of > the page does give the correct path. http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/* is a copy of

I'm sorry, I did not completely understand your email, let me clarify my response. On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:46:18PM -0400, Shukang Zhou wrote: > Thanks Misha. I tried the "gcc -dM -E /tmp/file.c | grep __sparcv9" > but there was no output. Maybe this is the probelm, I do have > > CXX = g++ -mcpu=v9 > CC := gcc -mcpu=v9 > > in the Makefile.config. Do I need

What's different about code that's been mem2reg'd from straight front end code, or anything that mem2reg hasn't been run on? PHINODES! It appears to be crashing when I try to cast a Value* that's really a BB* (from the PHInode operands) to a User*, insteresting since I am dyn_casting. I just caught this on cerr though (printing out what the Value* was each time). Let me

1. Re: LLVM optmization (Bill Wendling) Hi, The IR is not wrong. I said that the assembler generated by MSVC is quicker. We can see that the for loop, in the TESTE function, is done without jump's in the MSVC and with jumps in LLVM. I think thats the point. If we don't use threads, the result is the same. My test were done with one billion interactions in the for loop. The MSVC

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:52:28PM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 22:42, Misha Brukman wrote: > > > This would be the right one, so maybe if we ask Reid nicely, he'll > > do it (as he maintains the Cygwin nightly tester). > > I haven't used Net News since its signal-to-noise ratio dropped below > my tolerance level (circa 1995). However, if