similar to: [LLVMdev] lib/System Unleashed - Need Your Help!

Reid Spencer wrote: > Folks, > > With some MacOS help from Nate, I've begun the conversion of LLVM to use > lib/System, the operating system independence layer. FYI, I'm getting this on an up-to-date tree: Compiling Path.cpp In file included from platform/Path.cpp:20, from Path.cpp:37: platform/../Unix/Path.cpp: In static member function `static

Hi Reid, > With some MacOS help from Nate, I've begun the conversion of LLVM to use > lib/System, the operating system independence layer. Currently, the > library has implementations for three abstractions: Path, Program, and > Signals. Did you consider using boost::filesystem for Path abstraction? See the documentation on: http://boost.org/libs/filesystem/doc/index.htm

Hi Vladimir, The LLVM source base used to be dependent on boost but we have removed that dependency because it had a high cost for the relatively small portions of it that we needed. boost is a general purpose C++ library that happens to handle filesystem things in a somewhat portable way. However, lib/System will handle signals, memory mapped files, program execution, and several other things

After update LLVM compile break with errors at FreeBSD 5.1 You can see log at night tester http://npt.cc.rsu.ru/testresults-X86-FreeBSD/index.html If you need additional information i will be glad provide it. Vladimir

I would like to volunteer for the port of Interix and Win32 platforms, if no one objects against this. /Henrik --- Got Freedom? Software Freedom Day 2004 - 28th of August http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/ --- >From: Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> >Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >To: LLVMdev List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>

Hi Reid, I downloaded the latest source code and ran configure (I suppose it was that you did mean). The result is: --------------- checking build system type... i586-pc-interix3 --------------- Otherwise, please correct me. /Henrik --- Got Freedom? Software Freedom Day 2004 - 28th of August http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/ --- >From: Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com>

On Thursday 22 September 2005 19:12, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > On 22/09/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Couldn't you state the explicit namespaces. So not using "using > >> namespace llvm" and instead prefix all calls with "llvm::"? > > > > The header files in

hi, when using the execution engine (no matter, if JIT or Interpreter) i get the following assertion as soon as i use boost::shared_ptr: /build/buildd/llvm-2.5/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp:522: void<unnamed>::Emitter::emitInstruction(const llvm::MachineInstr&, const llvm::TargetInstrDesc*): Assertion `0 && "JIT does not support inline asm!\n"' failed.

hi, thanks for your quick replies. -DBOOST_SP_USE_PTHREADS worked indeed. however, i didn't measure the performance but i would assume that the boost developers had a good reason for using assembler in this context. will llvm ever support inline assembly? is there anybody who is working on that? thanks, stefan. On Tuesday 21 July 2009 01:54:20 pm Vladimir Prus wrote: > Stefan Weigert

Stefan Weigert wrote: > hi, > > when using the execution engine (no matter, if JIT or Interpreter) i get the > following assertion as soon as i use boost::shared_ptr: > > /build/buildd/llvm-2.5/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp:522: > void<unnamed>::Emitter::emitInstruction(const llvm::MachineInstr&, const > llvm::TargetInstrDesc*): Assertion `0 &&

On 9/23/05, Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> wrote: > In fact, I believe that > > using namespace llvm; > using namespace boost; > using boost::tie; > > should resove the problem witout needed to explicitly nominate all boost names > you use. Except that this does not work on global scope, but only in > namespace: <SNIP> Also, it might be an idea

Hello, I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: llvm[0]: Installing include files /bin/sh: line 1: pax: command not found Two questions. 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard tool? Is it possible to get away without it. 2. autoconf/configure.ac has this: AC_PATH_PROG(PAX, [pax], [pax]) but Makefile.rules uses plain 'pax',

Result night tester run at FreeBSD 5.1 accessable by URL http://npt.cc.rsu.ru/testresults-X86-FreeBSD/index.html I can't guaranty run it per day base, sorry. As i can see, make (bug 385) and perl (bug 386) not builded by NightlyTest.pl (but builded if use gmake night tests run format) So I don't known preferable solutions: its can be closed or patches applied. Vladimir

I've finally managed to bring my backend to a minimally working form. I can compile three small examples with arithmetic operations, branches and phi operations. However, there surely is a lot of omissions and bugs. How do I test a backend. For obvious reasons, I'd prefer a number of really small tests, to make debugging easier. I see some number of such small tests in

The above-mentioned test contains this: long B53 = - (1LL << 53); strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Thouhts? - Volodya

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> If you're interested, please try it out. > I get this with LLVM CVS: > Adding: > #include "llvm/Target/TargetData.h" > Fixed this. Right, thanks. > Chris, any change you'll make gcc4 frontend source available from some CVS? > Then, I can put together a script to build it every night, to make sure > things

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > Result night tester run at FreeBSD 5.1 accessable by URL > http://npt.cc.rsu.ru/testresults-X86-FreeBSD/index.html > I can't guaranty run it per day base, sorry. Okay, sounds great. I added it to the page with a note to that effect: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/ Thanks a lot for volenteering to run it. Also, if you notice

Reid Spencer wrote: > Volodya, > > I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test > using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm > also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have > been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the > attachment is obviously generated by code that runs

Hi, the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like this: Instruction *InsertBefore=0 any reason there's no "const" before "Instruction" ? - Volodya

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then: