similar to: [LLVMdev] ANNOUNCEMENT: LLVM IRC Channel

Due to some issues around channel ownership and spamming, we've decided to move the IRC channel for discussing issues over to the OFTC IRC network[1]. I'll continue to be available in the channel on freenode for a while, but I'll be redirecting people to our new channel. Thanks for your understanding. Any questions, please feel free to ask. [1] - http://www.oftc.net/oftc/ -- Darryl

In case there is any interest in a #syslinux IRC channel, I'll try to get one going on the OFTC IRC network. Basically, if you're interested in participating, connect to irc.oftc.net and join #syslinux. -hpa

Hi all. I fear I''m slightly offtopic with this question, but I''ll keep it short: who is (or feels) responsible for the #lartc irc-channel in oftc.net? I''d appreciate if that person would get in contact with me (off-list) in order to discuss some ideas I have. Thanks in advance. Bye, Mike _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list /

Yiping, If you are doing architectural synthesis, I do agree that you likely need to capture some operations in the instruction set, especially if you want to perform analyses and optimizations on those operations. Some specific comments: On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Yiping Fan wrote: > Vikram, >     I also agree with you. I understand that target-independent > representation is

Ok, the last status update (http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2003-June/000416.html) was over 7 weeks ago, sorry about that. We've been really busy squishing bugs, improving stability, and otherwise improving the system for the release. Here are some of the major accomplishments in LLVM since the last update... 1. We finally have the go-ahead from the university to release LLVM

I'd be interested to hear how that's being done - if Brian would reply to the list about it, I'd appreciate it. -mike On Aug 19, 2004, at 3:39 PM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > Qiuyu, > > The dynamic optimization project (an internal research project in our > group) uses some way to map LLVM basic blocks to native code > addresses. If this is what you want, perhaps you

Vikram, I also agree with you. I understand that target-independent representation is very valuable and important for software compilation. However, when we are doing high-level synthesis (also called behavioral/architectural synthesis), the targeting architecture is also changing. That is, we need to do architecture exploration and the IR transfromation simultaneously. For example,

Hello, I'm Ziyu Yu, a gsoc applier. I'm banned from the irc: * alapagos.oftc.net NOTICE AUTH :*** Looking up your hostname... * *** Checking Ident * *** Your forward and reverse DNS do not match, ignoring hostname. * *** No Ident response * *** Banned autokilled: We suspect this host of participating in a botnet. Mail support at oftc.net if you feel this in error. (2008-03-15 16:29:08) *

Let me add to one point that Misha made (just to show I actually read these messages!)... >> >> Any ballpark ideas on when an alpha version could be available? Are we >> talking months or years here? > > First of all, I would like to point out that the goal is *NOT* to > compile Linux > to run natively on your favorite architecture; instead, we aim to > compile

In addition, there are groups at STMicroelectronics and at Siemens that have used or are considering using LLVM. Note that these are internal development projects for now -- they (and Apple) have not publicly announced products based on LLVM. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Feb 14, 2006, at 11:24 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at

Qiuyu, The dynamic optimization project (an internal research project in our group) uses some way to map LLVM basic blocks to native code addresses. If this is what you want, perhaps you can ask Brian Gaeke (gaeke at uiuc.edu) to give you some information about how that is done. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Aug 19, 2004, at 5:11 PM, Misha Brukman

Yiping, Could you describe in a little more detail what your goals are? I agree with Reid and Misha that modifying the instruction definition is usually not advisable but to suggest alternatives, we would need to know more. Also, for some projects it could make sense to change the instruction set. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Oct 20, 2004, at 2:41 PM,

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:12:58AM -0500, Vikram Adve wrote: > PHI nodes within machine code were originally used by the Sparc > back-end but they turned out not to be necessary. Actually, they are currently used in non-SparcV9 backends (see below). > Instead, LLVM phis are lowered to copy instructions in the machine > code (I believe this happens just after instruction selection).

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:05:20PM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:45, Vikram Adve wrote: > > > This implies that it is not intended for end-user consumption but > > > more for a proof-of-concept and ongoing research potential. > > > > You're being too modest, Misha --- this is going to be the Linux of > > the future :) > >

Hi -- I''ve created and registered an IRC channel, #rubyforrails on irc.freenode.net, for discussion of, and questions about, my book "Ruby for Rails". I''ll do my best to be on hand to field questions and comments. This is in addition to, not instead of, the other ways you can reach me (email, Ruby and Rails mailing lists, Author Online forum at Manning, Author

I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here. I can understand the need to drop a xiph irc server. However, I do take issue with moving to Freenode. The reason that we moved so long ago (as I understand it) is that an overwhelming flood of politics made real vorbis discussion uncomfortable. A few people took things personally and acted out, and pretty soon everybody was on edge. Just looking

I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here. I can understand the need to drop a xiph irc server. However, I do take issue with moving to Freenode. The reason that we moved so long ago (as I understand it) is that an overwhelming flood of politics made real vorbis discussion uncomfortable. A few people took things personally and acted out, and pretty soon everybody was on edge. Just looking

July Status Update ------------------ Hi everyone! This month has been a busy month of cleanups and refinements, and marks over a year of LLVM status updates :). LLVM is getting substantially smaller (in memory footprint) and faster, received a few cool new features, and has a few more fixed bugs. We are currently thinking about unleashing the LLVM 1.3 release in about 3-4 weeks from now. If

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 08:51, Misha Brukman wrote: > llvm-build or llvm-driver are both kinda long but at least they make > sense... Yeah, that's my sense too. > > As an aside, llava and llama are both taken, llvmize? llvminator? > llvm-emerge a la gentoo? Uh. No? > > > llvm-run - runs programs built by llvm-build > > Wait, is llvm-run the same as lli?

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:45, Vikram Adve wrote: > > This implies that it is not intended for end-user consumption but more > > for a proof-of-concept and ongoing research potential. > > You're being too modest, Misha --- this is going to be the Linux of the > future :) > I'll add my pragmatist $0.02 worth here. Take it with a grain of salt. If LLVA isn't